IB
i
*;;*- V
w)
WHITAKER S
DISPUTATION ON SCRIPTURE.
4For tljc publication of ttjc ^loriio of
anti Crarli) Mlrtttr^ of tljc liirfortnrD
DISPUTATION
ON
HOLY SCRIPTURE,
AGAINST THE PAPISTS,
ESPECIALLY
BELLARMINE AND STAPLETON.
BY
AVILLIAM WHITAKER, D.D.,
REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY, AND MASTER OF ST JOHN S COLLEGE,
IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE.
TRANSLATED AND EDITED FOR
BY THE
REV. WILLIAM FITZGERALD, A.M.
PREBENDARY OF DONOUGHMORE IN THE CATHEDRAL OF ST PATRICK, AND
PROFESSOR OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN.
CAMBRIDGE:
PRINTED AT
THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
M.DCCC.XLIX.
CONTENTS.
PAGE
PREFACE by the Editor ........ ix
Epistle Dedicatory to Lord Burghley 3
Preface to the Controversies . . . . . . .14
Question the First of the First Controversy : Of the number of the
Canonical Books of Scripture , . . . . .25
Question the Second : Of the Authentic Edition and Versions of the
Scriptures ......... 110
Question the Third: Of the Authority of Scripture . . .275
Question the Fourth : Of the Perspicuity of Scripture . . 359
Question the Fifth : Of the Interpretation of Scripture . . 402
Question the Sixth : Of the Perfection of Scripture, against Unwrit
ten Traditions 496
To the Reader 705
Index 709
PREFACE.
IT seemed desirable that this, the great work of one of
the greatest of our early divines upon the cardinal point of
difference between the churches of the Roman and the reformed
communions, should be comprised in the collection of the Parker
Society ; not only on account of its intrinsic merits, but also for
its historical value ; as exhibiting the posture of defence assumed
by our schools against that change of tactics in the management
of this great controversy, which is to be dated from the insti
tution of the Society of Jesus.
William Whitaker (or Whitacre) was born at Holme, in Lan
cashire, A.D. 1547, of a good family, nearly related, to Alexander
Nowel, the celebrated dean of St Paul s. He was bred at Cam
bridge, where he soon distinguished himself, and was in 1579
appointed the Queen s Professor of Divinity. In 1586, through
the influence of Burghley and Whitgift, and in spite of obstinate
and powerful opposition, he was made Master of St John s Col
lege in that University ; soon after which appointment he took
his degree of Doctor in Divinity. His delay in assuming the
doctorate seems curious, and it was maliciously made the ground
of a most unjust imputation of puritanism. How small was his
sympathy with the disciplinarian party, appears from the manner
in which he speaks of their great leader, Cartwright, in a letter
preserved by Bancroft 1 : " Quern Cartwrightus nuper emisit libel-
lum, ejus magnam partem perlegi. Ne vivam, si quid unquam
viderim dissolutius ac pene puerilius. Verborum satis ille quidem
lautam ac novam supellectilem habet, rerum omnino nullam,
quantum ego quidem judicare possum. Deinde rion modo per
verse de Principis in Rebus Sacris atque Ecclesiasticis auctoritate
sentit ; sed in papistarum etiam castra transfugit ; a quibus ta-
men videri vult odio capital! dissidere. Yerum nee in hac causa
1 Survey of Discipline, p. 379, Lond. 1593.
X PREFACE.
ferendus, sed aliis etiam in partibus tela a papistis mutuatur.
Denique, ut de Ambrosio dixit Hieronymus, verbis ludit, sententiis
dormitat, et plane indignus est qui a quopiam docto refutetur."
But though far removed from the disciplinarian tenets of
the puritans, Whitaker undoubtedly agreed with them in their
hostility to the Arminian opinions, which in his time began to
prevail in the Church of England; as appears from the share
taken by him in the prosecution of Baret, and the devising of
the Lambeth articles. The history of such proceedings is foreign
from my present purpose; but the reader will find a full detail
of the circumstances connected with them in Strype s Life of
Whitgift, Book iv., Chapters 14 18. Shortly after the termi
nation of that memorable dispute, Whitaker died in 1595, in
the forty-seventh year of his age. He was married, and had
eight children. It was pleasantly said of him, that he gave the
world a child and a book 1 every year. Of his children I have
nothing to communicate, and his books will speak for themselves.
They gained for him in his life-time a high character, not only
with friends, but with enemies also. " I have," says the writer
of his life, in Lupton s Protestant Divines 2 , " I have heard it
confessed of English Papists themselves, which have been in Italy
with Bellarmine himself, that he procured the true portraiture
and effigies of this Whitaker to be brought to him, which he
kept in his study. For he privately admired this man for his
singular learning and ingenuity ; and being asked of some of his
friends, Jesuits, why he would have the picture of that heretic
in his presence ? he would answer, Quod quamvis hcereticus
erat et adversarius, erat tamen doctus adversarius : that, " al
though he was an heretic, and his adversary, yet he was a learned
adversary," p. 359. " He was," says Gataker, " tall of stature and
upright ; of a grave aspect, with black hair and a ruddy com
plexion ; a solid judgment, a liberal mind, an affable disposition ; a
1 Librum et Liberum quotannis. See Fuller s Life of Whitaker in the
"Holy State."
2 History of the moderne Protestant Divines, &c., faithfully translated
out of the Latin by D. L., London, 1637.
PREFACE. XI
mild, yet no remiss governor ; a contemner of money ; of a mode
rate diet, a life generally unblameable, and (that which added a
lustre to all the rest) amidst all these endowments, and the respects
of others (even ihe greatest) thereby deservedly procured, of a most
meek and lowly spirit." "Who," asks Bishop Hall, "ever saw
him without reverence ? or heard him without wonder ? "
I have only to add, that in the translation I have endeavoured
to be as literal as would consist with a due regard to the English
idiom. Had I considered myself at liberty to use more freedom,
I should have made my task more easy to myself, and the work
perhaps less tedious to the reader : for there is a prolixity in
Whitaker s style, which contrasts unfavourably with the com
pactness of his great antagonist, Bellarmine; though he trespasses
far less upon the student s patience than Stapleton, whose verbose
rhetoric made him admired in his own day, and whose subtlety of
logic cannot save him from neglect in ours.
It is proper to apprise the reader, that, besides the Controversy
translated in the present volume, the only one published in the
Author s life-time, three others are contained in the ponderous
volumes of his works, all of which were published after his death
by John Allenson, B.D., Fellow of St John s College. The subjects
of these are De Ecclesia, De Conciliis, and De Romano Pontifice.
He encountered Bellarmine also on the other controversies in suc
cession, De ministris et presbyteris Ecclesice, De sanctis mortuis,
De Ecclesia triumphante, De Sacramentis in genere, De Baptismo,
and De Eucliaristia. " Quas," adds his biographer, Obadiah
Assheton, a Fellow of his College, " utinam licuisset per otium
relegisse, et mandasse typis universas : id enim auditoribus erat in
votis vel maxime ; quorum cum summa admiratione et acclamatione
singulas tractarat controversias. Ceterum studio respondendi Bel-
larmino in omnibus controversiis religionis provectus, optimum
censuit has elucubratas disputationes apud se reponere ; ratus (quod
postea non evenit) aptius fore tempus eas per otium evulgandi.
Sed Deo immortali, cnjus consilia sunt abyssus inscrutabilis, aliter
visum est."
Xli PREFACE,
The following is the list of his works :
1. Responsio ad decera rationes Edm. Campiani. 8vo. Lond.
1581.
2. Responsionis ad decem rationes Edm. Campiani Defensio.
8vo. Lond. 1583.
3. Refutatio Nic. Sanderi, quod Papa non sit Antichristus.
8vo. Lond. 1583.
4. Answer to W. Rainold s Reprehensions, &c. 8vo. Camb.
1585.
5. Disputatio de Sacra Scriptura contra hujus temporis Pa-
pistas. 4to. Cantab. 1588.
6. Pro authoritate atque auroTrta-ria S. Scripture Duplicatio
contra T. Stapletonum. Libri 3. Cantab. 1594.
7. Pra3lectiones de Ecclesia, &c., edited after his death by
J. Allenson. 4to. Cantab. 1599.
8. Pr^lectiones de Conciliis. 8vo. Cantab. 1600.
9. Concio in 1 Thess. v. 12. 4to. Cantab. 1599.
10. In Controversial! de R. Pontifice, distributam in qua?s-
tiones viii., adversus Pontificios, imprimis R. Bellarminum, praelec-
tiones. 8vo. Hanov. 1608.
11. De Sacramentis. Francof. 1624. 4to.
A complete collection of his works in Latin was printed in two
vols. folio, at Geneva, 1610.
Besides the above, Whitaker published in 1569 a Greek trans
lation of the Common Prayer; in 1573, of Nowel s larger, and in
1575, of the smaller Catechism.
DISPUTATION
ON
HOLY SCRIPTURE.
[WHITAKER.]
[Title-page of the original work, 1610.]
D I SP VT ATIO
DE SACRA SCRIPTVRA;
CONTRA HVIVS TEMPORIS
PAPIST AS, INPRIMIS,
ROBERTVM BELLARMINVM IESVITAM,
Pontificium in Collegio Romano, & THOMAM
STAPLETONVM, Regium in Schola Dua-
cena Controuersiarum
Professorem :
Qucestionilus proposita fy tractata a GVILIELMO WHITAKERO Theologioe
Doctore ac Profeffbre Regio, fy Collegij D. loannis in Canta-
Irigiensi Academia Magistro.
BASILIVS in Epistola ad Eustathium medicum.
11 Oeoirvevo-Tos tj^v StaiTrja-ctTW ypatyri K a\ Trap of? av evpeOfj TCI Soy^a-rct
o-ui/wBa roTs BetoK Xo yoi?, eir\ roi/Vots ijgei TroWws Try? aA^0C(O9 ij
EPISTLE DEDICATORY.
TO THE MOST NOBLE AND PRUDENT,
WILLIAM CECIL, KNIGHT,
BARON BURGHLEY, HIGH TREASURER OF ENGLAND, AND
CHANCELLOR OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE.
THERE have been many heretofore, illustrious Cecil, who
have defended the papal interest and sovereignty with the utmost
exertion, the keenest zeal, and no mean or vulgar erudition. But
they who have played their part with most address, and far out
stripped almost all others of their own side, are those men who
now, for some years back, have been engaged most earnestly in
this cause ; a fresh supply of monks, subtle theologians, vehement
and formidable controvertists ; whom that strange and, in former
times, unheard of Society of Jesus hath brought forth, for the
calamity of the church and the Christian religion. For when,
after that black, deadly, baneful, and tedious night of popish
superstition and antichristianism, the clear and cheerful lustre
of the gospel had illuminated with its rays some portions of
the Christian world, attracting, and by its incredible charms at the
same time moving all, to gaze on, admire, and cleave to it; on
a sudden, these men sprang up to obscure with pestilential vapours,
and ravish, if possible, from our view, this light, so hateful to
themselves, so hostile and prejudicial to their interests. So indeed
had John, that holy disciple of Christ, predicted in the Apocalypse,
that a star, which had fallen from heaven, and received the key
of the infernal pit, should remove the covering of the abyss,
and cause a mighty smoke to issue forth, like the smoke of a
great furnace, shedding darkness over the sun and heaven. This
12
4 EPISTLE DEDICATORY.
pit, from the time that it was first opened, hath not ceased to
exhale perpetual smoke to blind the eyes of men ; and, as the
same prophet had foretold, hath sent forth innumerable locusts
upon the earth, like scorpions, who have wounded with their
deadly stings all men upon whose foreheads the seal of God was
not impressed. The event itself, the best interpreter of prophe
cies, has illustrated the obscurity of the prediction. For who can
doubt the meaning of the star, the pit, the smoke, the locusts ;
who considers the state of the papal power, in which they are
all so pourtrayed to the very life, as to be most readily dis
cerned by any one, who can compare together the past and pre
sent, and interprets what was foretold, as about to happen, by
that which is seen to have occurred ?
Amongst these locusts, that is, as very learned men justly
deem, amongst the innumerable troops of monks none, as we
before said, have ever appeared, more keen, or better prepared
and equipped for doing mischief, than are the Jesuits at this
present day ; who in a short space have surpassed all other
societies of that kind in numbers, in credit, and in audacity.
Other monks, following the rule and practice of former times,
lived in general a life of leisure and inactivity, and spent their
time, not in reading and the study of the sciences, but in repeating
by the glass certain offices for the canonical hours, which con
tributed nothing to the advancement of either learning or religion.
But the Jesuits have pursued a far different course. They have
left the shade of ancient sloth and inactivity, in which the other
monks had grown grey, and have come forth to engage in toils,
to treat of arts and sciences, to undertake and carry through an
earnest struggle for the safety of the common interests. It hath
come to be understood, that the cause of Eome, which, shaken by
the perilous blows dealt on every side by men of ability and
learning, had begun in many parts to totter and give way,
could never be defended or maintained, except by learned and
diligent and active champions.
For just as a dilapidated mansion, unless propped up almost
EPISTLE DEDICATORY. O
every day by fresh and firm buttresses, will suddenly fall in a
violent and total ruin ; so they perceived that the Roman syna
gogue, tottering as it is and threatening to fall, in its wretched
state of decay and dilapidation, hath need continually of new
supports and bracings, to maintain any remnant of its state and
dignity under the pressure of such vehement assaults. Yet, with
all their efforts, shall they never be able to avert the imminent
calamity, or rescue themselves from perdition. But as buildings,
whose foundations are subverted, their walls pierced, their roofs
uncovered, having no part secure, can never be supported long
by any multitude of artificial props ; so that church of theirs,
all rent and torn on every side, in which nor roof, nor pillar,
nor foundation remains sound, intrinsically devoid of firmness and
integrity, must at length fall headlong, and crush many to de
struction in its ruins. We are not to believe that the Roman
church is flourishing, because the Jesuits are often able to impose
upon inconstant and unskilful persons, and lead them into the
popish fraud by the lures and blandishment of their fallacious
reasoning, any more than we should think that health and life
is restored to the frame that labours in a mortal malady, when
it gains, for a moment, some casual alleviation of its pain. Let
the Jesuits do their best ; let them exert, if possible, still more
intense sedulity, and omit nothing that learning and diligence can
accomplish without the aid of truth. Yet all they can accomplish
will be this, to prop a falling house with mounds and buttresses,
to afford some brief refreshment to antichrist, now gasping in his
last long agony, and, despite of all the rules of physic, apply
remedies to a desperate disease.
Amongst these Jesuits, Robert Bellarmine, a native of Italy,
hath now for several years obtained a great and celebrated name.
At first he taught scholastic divinity in Belgium ; but afterwards,
having removed to Rome, he treated of theological controversies
in such a manner as to excite the admiration and gain the applause
of all. His lectures were eagerly listened to by his auditors,
transcribed, transmitted into every quarter, and treasured up as
6 EPISTLE DEDICATORY.
jewels and amulets. After some time, for the sake of rendering
them more generally useful, they were epitomized by a certain
Englishman. Finally, the first volume of these controversies
hath been published at Ingolstadt, printed by Sartorius; and the
rest are expected in due time 1 . Now, therefore, Bellarmine is
cried up by his party as an invincible champion, as one with
whom none of our men would dare to engage, whom nobody can
answer, and whom if any one should hope to conquer, they would
regard him as an utter madman.
When you, honoured sir, demanded my opinion of this writer,
I answered, as indeed I thought, that I deemed him to be a man
unquestionably learned, possessed of a happy genius, a penetrating
judgment, and multifarious reading ; one, moreover, who was
wont to deal more plainly and honestly than is the custom of
other papists, to press his arguments more home, and to stick more
closely to the question. Thus, indeed, it became a man who had
been trained in the schools, and who had made the handling of
controversies his professed business, to dismiss all circumlocutions
and digressions, and concern himself entirely with the argument ;
and, having read all that had been previously written upon the
subject, to select those reasons and replies which seemed to have
most strength and sinew in them. In the prosecution of which
task, he was led to weigh everything with a profound and anxious
solicitude, and has sometimes differed from all his predecessors, and
struck out new explanations of his own ; perceiving, I suppose,
that the old ones were not sound enough to be relied on. We
have an instance (Lib. n. de Verbo Dei, c. 16) in his treatment
of 1 Cor. 14, where the apostle forbids the use of a strange
language in the church. The former popish writers had usually
understood that place to speak of exhortations or sermons to the
[! The first complete edition of Bellarmine s Controversies was printed,
according to Bayle, at Ingolstadt, in three Tomes, 1586. The oldest edition
which I have seen is that of 1588, printed also at Ingolstadt by Sartorius,
in three Tomes. Alegambus states that the first Tome was printed so
early as 1581.]
EPISTLE DEDICATORY.
people ; or, if they conceded that it might be understood of divine
service, interpreted it so as to require that the words of the minis
ter should be understood, not by the whole congregation, but only
by him who made the responses in their name. But Bellarmino,
having reflected upon the falsehood and weakness of these evasions,
hath invented another for himself; and pretends that the apostle
is speaking not of the offices of divine service, nor yet of the
public reading of the scriptures, but only of certain spiritual
songs and canticles. What, however, or what sort of things
these were, or why they required to be recited in a known
language more than the common prayers or the scripture lessons,
it is not so easy to understand. But of this place of the apostle,
and this new pretence of Bellarmine s, we have discoursed suf
ficiently at large in the second question, chap. 18, of this con
troversy.
So again, (Lib. in. cap. 2) where he is answering an objection
drawn from St Peter s calling the prophetic word a lamp, he does
not answer, as Hosius did (Lib. in. contra Proleg. Brentii), that
in the prophecies there are many things plain, and that what is
enigmatically spoken in the prophets is expressed clearly in the
gospel ; but he says that prophecy is called a lamp, not because it
is easily understood, but because it illuminates when it is under
stood. He saw clearly that Hosius exposition left our doctrine of
the perspicuity of scripture in sufficient strength, and therefore
excogitated this new one ; upon which we have treated, Quest, iv.
chap. 4.
In the same way, when we maintain that the mysteries of
the faith should be concealed from no one, and allege, in proof,
those words of Christ, " What ye hear in the ear, that proclaim
ye upon the house-tops ;" Bellarmine, (Lib, iv. c. 12) has recourse
to a strange and hitherto, I think, unheard of interpretation ;
that is, says he, if need so require. He gives the allegation no
other reply whatever ; and how proper and apposite an answer
this is, I am content that others should determine.
Again, when we urge that the scripture is called canonical, and
8 EPISTLE DEDICATORY.
therefore is, what that very appellation indicates, the rule of faith
and of living ; Bellarmine answers confidently in the same chapter,
that the scripture was not published to be the rule of our faith,
but to serve " as a sort of commonitory, useful to preserve and
cherish the faith received by preaching." So that, according to
this new interpretation of Bellarmine s, we learn that the scriptures
are no rule of faith at all, but a certain commonitory, an honour
which they share with many others ; nor yet even a necessary
one, but only useful to the end of preserving the traditions.
This is a noble judgment of the value of scripture, and alto
gether worthy of a Jesuit ! a judgment which leaves the bible
only the office of admonishing us, as if we only required to be
admonished, and not taught.
Bellarmine hath innumerable such new discoveries ; with which
he defends the papal cause in a different manner, indeed, from
that of its former patrons, but yet is so far from really serving
it, that he hath rather done it the greater damage and injury
with discreet and attentive readers, who have any care for their
faith and religion. For hence it appears that, while Bellarmine
cannot approve the answers of others, it is impossible to invent
new ones, which are not worse than the old.
I remember, too, that in the course of that same conversa
tion between us, I allowed Bellarmine the merit of dealing less
dishonestly with the testimonies of the fathers than is customary
with others, and of not captiously or maliciously perverting the
state of the question; a fault which, I found, had particularly
disgusted you in certain writers ; whereas religious disputes and
controversies should be managed in such a way as to eschew all
craft, and seek truth, and truth alone, with a holy earnestness.
I acknowledged that, while our adversaries erred grossly in this
respect, our own party stood not so wholly clear of the same
fault, as became the investigators of truths so sacred ; which, in
proportion as they are more heavenly in their nature, and concern
us more nearly, should be searched into and handled with so
much the more sincerity.
EPISTLE DEDICATORY.
9
But, since many more eager for contention than for truth
propose to themselves scarcely any other object than to be able to
say something against their opponents, and to be esteemed the
champions of a cause, which they love much better than they un
derstand ; so it comes to pass, that the just state of the question is
laid aside with a cold neglect, and truth, as usual, is lost in alter
cation. Thus Bellarmine himself, where he undertakes to impugn
our doctrine of the perspicuity of scripture (Lib. in. c. 1), lays
this down as the state of the question, " Whether scripture be so
plain in itself as to be sufficient, without any explication, to deter
mine controversies of faith;" and he imposes upon us the office of
maintaining that the scriptures are in themselves most plain and
easy, and stand in need of no interpretation: as if we either
thought that every part of scripture was plain, easy, and clear,
or ever rejected the exposition and interpretation of the scriptures !
Could Bellarmine really hope to impose upon us in so gross a
manner, as to make us confess that to be our opinion which had
never so much as entered into our thoughts? But to this we
have given a sufficiently plain answer in our fourth question.
I could wish that this were the only place in which Bellarmine
had shewn bad faith, and that he had not elsewhere also played
the Jesuit in matters of no small importance. For there can be
no end of writing and disputing, no decision of controversies, no
concord amongst Christians, until, laying aside all party feelings,
and assuming the most impartial desire and design of investigating
truth, we apply ourselves entirely to that point where the stress of
the controversy lies.
And now (since I am addressing one who is accustomed both
to think of these matters often and seriously himself, and to. listen
to others delivering their own opinions upon them also), allow me
briefly to explain, and commend to your consideration, a thing
which I have long wished for, and which I trust might be ac
complished with singular advantage and with no great difficulty.
Our adversaries have very often demanded a disputation, and
declared that they especially wish and long for permission to hold
10 EPISTLE DEDICATORY.
a scholastical contest with us upon the subject of those questions
which form the matter of our present controversies. Whether this
demand be made hypocritically, as many suppose, or sincerely, I,
for my part, would desire that they may have their asking. For,
although they cannot deny that they have often been disputed
with in Germany, France, and England, nay, that those learned
men Melancthon and Brentius repaired to Trent for the sole purpose
of defending the confessions of their churches against the Popish
theologians ; yet I would have them made to understand, that they
have no reason for believing that their cause hath become one
whit the better, since it hath been espoused by its Jesuit patrons,
than it was heretofore, when defended by the ancient orders. Let
the Jesuits be allowed acute, ready, practised, eloquent, and full of
resources ; let them be, in a word, whatever they are, or are be
lieved to be : yet truth is ever one and the same ; and still, the
more it is attacked, shines out with greater brilliancy and lustre.
Perhaps, indeed, it will be said that none can be found who would
dare to stand a conflict with the Jesuits, or are fit to be matched
with such opponents. I know well, for my part, how confident and
boastful these men are, and what a look and mien they assume
in disputation; as if they had only learned how most arrogantly
to despise their adversaries, not how to give a better answer to
their arguments. Yet, since the sacred laws of such conferences
secure to each man just so much advantage, and no more, as he
can win by reason and argument, and whatever is said must be
reduced to the rules of Syllogism ; there remains no ground to fear
that painted falsehood will prevail more than simple and naked
truth. Not to speak of foreign nations and churches, where every
one knows that there is abundance of learned men, this island itself
possesses persons well skilled in every kind of learning, who could
readily, not only explain the truth, but defend it also against any
adversaries. In both our Universities there are men so practised
and skilled in every portion of these controversies, that they would
rather forfeit their recognisance, than shrink from a dispute so
honourable, just, and necessary.
EPISTLE DEDICATORY. 11
Nor do I see that any so great inconvenience is to be appre
hended from this course, as some suspect. For, although those who
are bound to this cause by a blind superstition, will probably be so
far from reaping any advantage, that they will rather be rendered
still more obstinate, and some fickle people will, perhaps, be even
alienated from our side ; as, in every disputation, opinions incline
different ways, according as the several auditors are capable of
judging or inclined to attend and reflect ; yet, we may reasonably
augur the following important results : First, it would easily appear,
what is the true state of the question in each controversy ; which
should be pressed, driven home, and discussed, without regard to
impertinent and trifling altercations. In the next place, it cannot
be doubted, that all who measured religion, not by the decrees of
men or their own caprice, but by the standard of the holy scrip
tures, and were ready to acknowledge and embrace the truth when
it was found, would easily reject the rotten devices of the papists,
and prefer that sound and wholesome doctrine of the faith, which
our churches have drawn from the pure springs of scripture, to
their old and idle superstition. Lastly, the wishes of our adversaries
would be satisfied ; nor could they any longer, with any shew of
probability, reproach us openly with cowardice. Yea, the truth
itself, which we profess, would rise above the suspicion which it has
incurred in the minds of some, and establish itself in the light
and conscience of all the world. There is nothing which truth
fears so much as to be prevented from appearing in public, and be
ing exposed lo the examination of all men. It would rather have
any patron that is not absolutely dumb, than go without defence
from the unrighteous calumnies of unjust accusers. One thing only
I would have carefully provided. Prudent and grave moderators
should preside in this disputation ; who should restrain petulance,
repress clamours, permit no breach of decorum, and maintain order,
modesty and discipline. I have now laid before you my thoughts
and wishes. The determination rests with those who are at the
helm of church and state ; with yourself especially, in regard of
that singular wisdom which hath ever distinguished you in every
judgment and deliberation. I now return to Bellarmine.
12 EPISTLE DEDICATORY.
I am rejoiced that these controversies of his, so much celebrated
in common report, have now been published by himself; so as that
we all may easily judge of their quality, their value, their strength,
and their importance, nor believe Bellarmine to be any other than
we find him by their evidence. And, although our adversaries
opinions might be collected from the many other writers who have
appeared in great numbers on the same side ; yet, since there are
many points upon which they do not all agree, it hath been a matter
of some obscurity hitherto, to ascertain the real judgment of the
Roman church. But now that Bellarmine hath been published, we
shall know better and more certainly what it is they hold upon
every subject, the arguments on which they specially rely, and
what is (so to speak) the very marrow of popery, which is thought
to be as much in the Jesuits as in the pope himself. Knowing,
therefore, how much our party desire that these Jesuits should be
answered, and having fallen in with a manuscript copy of Bcl-
larmine s Lectures, I thought it worth my while to handle these
same controversies in the schools in the discharge of the duties of my
office, to discuss the new sophisms of the Jesuits, and vindicate our
unadulterated truth from the captious cavils with which the popish
professor had entangled it. Afterwards, being often requested by
many persons to publish some of my disputations against our ad
versaries, and let the whole church share in the benefit of my toil
and studies, I determined to commit to the press this controversy
concerning SCRIPTURE, which is the first of them ; and which,
forming, as it does, a sort of vestibule to the rest, and sufficing of
itself to fill a reasonable volume, seemed, as it were, to demand
that I should not wait until I had completed the remainder, but
publish it by itself, and separate from all the others.
In all this I did nothing without the approbation of the most
reverend father, the archbishop of Canterbury, a man of the
greatest wisdom and the greatest learning, who, having read and
thoroughly considered this whole controversy, declared it worthy
of publication. Now that it is published, I dedicate it to you, most
noble Cecil, whom I have ever esteemed the great patron and
Maecenas of my studies; you, in whom this college prides herself
EPISTLE DEDICATORY. 13
as a member of her body, and will always, as long as she stands,
challenge to herself on this account a just prerogative ; you, whom
our university respects as chancellor ; whom the whole state cele
brates as the father of your country ; whom the church recognises
as a son serviceable both to its interest and safety. I pray God
that he may preserve you ever in safety and prosperity to our
church, state, university, and college. Farewell.
Your most devoted servant,
WILLIAM WHITAKER.
CAMBRIDGE. From the College of St John
the Evangelist. April 30, 1588.
PREFACE TO THE CONTROVERSIES,
DELIVERED
TO THE AUDIENCE AT CAMBRIDGE.
I THIS day enter upon a new undertaking, often demanded by
many and not unworthy of our university, the attempt to go
through those controversies, both numerous and great, as ye all
perceive, which are agitated between the Roman popish synagogue
and our churches reformed according to the word of God. Ac
customed as I have hitherto been to handle a sedate quiet kind of
theology, I here come suddenly upon the sternest strifes and most
violent contentions. I hope that this will appear matter of surprise
or censure to none of you ; at least I should desire that the object
of my intentions and design should meet with approbation from
you all. For I have not been led to this undertaking through
any rashness, or unreasonable and fickle impulses and movement
of my feelings, through disgust of old subjects to look out for new
ones ; but have proceeded with thought and deliberation, and not
without the authority and encouragement of those who have the
greatest influence in our church and university. Upon these grounds,
I am confident that I shall undertake the task upon which I am now
entering, not only without blame from any one, but with the highest
satisfaction to all except the papists : which consideration inspires
me with still greater alacrity for these controversies, although I am
by no means ignorant that the toil which I shall have to undergo
in managing them is at the same time increased and doubled. But
for your interests I should willingly do anything, and spare no
labour which I can perform. Indeed, if I wished to indulge myself,
or had any concern for my own leisure, I should never have
launched out upon this most stormy sea of controversies, in which
I shall be exposed to such a tossing as I have never yet expe
rienced in fulfilling the duties of my office, and where all the
diligence must be applied, which is required by a business of the
highest difficulty. But since our undertaking is both noble and
necessary, and long and earnestly desired by you, it did not become
me to balk your desires on account of the trouble of the task, but
PREFACE TO THE CONTROVERSIES. 15
to lay out for the common good whatever strength and ability I
may possess.
Now of this discourse I perceive that the utility, or rather the
necessity, is three-fold. In the first place, we have to treat not
of the opinions of philosophers, which one may either be ignorant
of, or refute with commendation, not of the forms of the lawyers,
in which one may err without damage, not of the institutions of
physicians, of the nature and cure of diseases, wherein only our
bodily health is concerned, not of any slight or trivial matters ;
but here the matter of our dispute is certain controversies of
religion, and those of the last importance, in which whosoever errs
is deceived to the eternal destruction of his soul. In a word, we
have to speak of the sacred scriptures, of the nature of the church,
of the sacraments, of righteousness, of Christ, of the fundamentals
of the faith ; all which are of that nature, that if one be shaken,
nothing can remain sound in the whole fabric of religion. If what
these men teach be true, we are in a miserable condition ; we are
involved in infinite errors of the grossest kind, and cannot possibly
be saved. But if, as I am fully persuaded and convinced, it is
they who are in error, they cannot deny that they are justly con
demned if they still persist in their errors. For if one heresy be
sufficient to entail destruction, what hope can be cherished for those
who defend so many heresies with such obstinate pertinacity ?
Therefore either they must perish, or we. It is impossible that
we can both be safe, where our assertions and belief are so contra
dictory. Since this is so, it behoves us all to bestow great pains
and diligence in acquiring a thorough knowledge of these matters,
where error is attended with such perils.
Besides, there is another reason which renders the handling of
these controversies at the present time not only useful, but even
necessary. The papists, who are our adversaries, have long since
performed this task ; they have done that which we are now only
beginning to do. And although they can never get the better of
us in argument, they have nevertheless got before us in time.
They have two professors in two of their colleges, Stapleton at
Douay, Allen at Rheims, both countrymen of ours, (besides other
doctors in other academies,) who have explained many controversies
and published books, Stapleton on the Church and Justification,
Allen on the Sacraments. But beyond them all, in the largeness
wherewith he hath treated these controversies, is Robert Bellar-
mine, the Jesuit at Rome, whose lectures are passed from hand to
16 PREFACE TO THE CONTROVERSIES.
hand, and diligently transcribed and read by very many. Indeed
I should wish that they were published, and am surprised that they
are not. But many copies of these lectures fly about everywhere
among the papists, and sometimes, in spite of their precautions, fall
into our hands. Shall we then, whilst these men defend their own
side with such activity and zeal, lie idle and think nothing of the
matter? These things, although they were in a fragmentary
manner explained by the papists, in many commentaries and sepa
rate books, yet are now handled in one single volume by them
selves ; the object and design of which proceeding cannot possibly
be a secret to any one. Why then should not we do the same,
and put a complete body of controversies into men s hands, col
lecting and compacting into one book whatever hath been disputed
in defence of the truth against popery, by writers of our own or
of any other party ? It is not every one that can at once form
a judgment of an argument, or find out a fitting reply in the books
of our divines. We must take measures for the security of these
persons, and especially at the present time, when so many, partly
by the reading of such books as are every day published by our
adversaries, partly by too great a familiarity with papists, have
fallen under a deplorable calamity, and deserted from us to the
popish camp.
Indeed, when I compare our side with the papists, I easily
perceive the great truth of Christ s saying, that " the children
of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of
light." Mark well, I beseech you, with what solicitude, vigilance,
and cunning, these men maintain their own kingdom ! Thev
prevent their people from reading our books, and forbid them to
have any intercourse with us, that so they may provide against
the influence of that contagion which they fear. Surely this is
wisely done. Who can deny it ? For if we be heretics, as they,
though falsely, exclaim, it is but a just consequence of that opinion
of us to denounce us, as persons to be carefully avoided by all who
are under their control. In the meanwhile we buy, read, peruse
all the productions of those whom we justly esteem heretics, and
never suspect the possibility of any damage accruing from our
conduct. Hence unskilful persons are easily deceived ; especially
if there be any encourager at hand to lend an impulse, as there are
at present everywhere too many. We avoid the acquaintance of
no one ; yea, we take a pleasure in conversing with papists. This
is all well, if your aim and desire be to reclaim them from their
PREFACE TO THE CONTROVERSIES. 17
errors, and if you are able to do this, and see that there is any
hope of them remaining. Those who are perverse and desperate
should be left to themselves ; you can do them no service, and they
may do you much damage. I commend courtesy in every one,
specially in an academic or man of letters ; but courtesy should not
be so intent upon its duties towards men as to forget piety and its
duty towards God. Bellarmine compares heresy to the plague,
and rightly. For the plague does not hang about the outward
limbs, but attacks the heart, immediately poisons it with its venom,
and suddenly destroys him who but a little before was in health ;
then it spreads a fatal contagion to others also, and often pervades
a whole family, sometimes fills the state itself with corpses and
funerals. In like manner heresy especially assails the heart, and
expels faith from the mind ; then creeps further and diffuses itself
over many. If then you tender your salvation, approach not
near so deadly a pestilence without an antidote or counterpoison.
Speaking of Alexander the coppersmith, Paul gives this admonition,
2 Tim. iv. 5, " Of whom be thou ware also ;" and subjoins as the
reason of this caution, " for he hath greatly withstood our words."
Those, therefore, who not only cherish in their own minds a perverse
opinion in religion, but cry out against and oppose sound doctrine,
and resist it to the utmost of their power, with such persons it is
perilous and impious to live on pleasant and familiar terms. For,
as the same apostle elsewhere directs, Tit. iii. 10, " A man that is
a heretic, after the first and second admonition, must be avoided.
For he is subverted, and sins against his own conscience, and is
condemned by his own judgment." Tertullian, in his Prescriptions
against heretics, declares that heresy should be "avoided as a
deadly fever." Now " fever," says he 1 , "as is well known, we
regard as an evil, in respect both of its cause and its power, with
abomination rather than with admiration ; and, as far as we can,
strive to avoid it, not having its extinction in our own power. But
heresies inflict eternal death, and the burning of a still intenser
fire." And Cyprian, Epist. 40 2 , "Fly far from the contagion of
[ l Febrem ut malum, et de causa et potentia sua, ut notum eat, abomi-
namur potius quam miramur, et quantum in nobis est prsecavemus, non
habentes abolitionem ejus in nostra potestate : hsereses vero mortem seter-
nam et majoris ignis ardorem inferent. Prescript. Hseret. c. ii.]
[ 2 i. e. in Pamelius edition : but in Fell s (Amstel. 1691) Ep. xliii. p. 82.
The words are : Procul ab hujusmodi hommum contagione discedite, et ser
2
[WHITAKER.]
18 PREFACE TO THE CONTROVERSIES.
such men, and shun by flight their discourses as a canker or a
pestilence ; since the Lord hath forewarned us, saying, They are
blind, and leaders of the blind. " Similar to this is the admonition
of Jerome, in his Epistle to Pammachius and Oceanus : " Beware,
reader, of reading : fly the viper V Thus it behoves us to fly as
poisonous vipers, not only the discourse, but the books and letters
of heretical persons. For, as Ambrose says in his 80th Epistle,
heretics " shed forth the speech of serpentine discourse, and,
turning catholic truth into the madness of their own doctrine,
traduce it after the example of the devil, and deceive the simplicity
of the sheep 2 ." If this be true at any time, surely we have felt it
true of the papists in our time. But let us return to the tenor of
our present discourse.
Besides the advantages of this task already enumerated this
should be added, in the third place, that, when a fixed method of
controversies hath been handled and explained by us, you will be
enabled to set down and assign to its proper place and division
whatever you may read yourselves in the books of ancient or later
divines of any pertinence to these subjects, or whatever arguments
against the papists may be suggested by your private meditations.
Many things escape us in the course of our reading or reflexion,
from our not knowing to what head they should be referred ; and
many are ill arranged, so that, although we have noted them down,
yet they do not readily present themselves at the proper time. But
when every thing is duly distributed in meet order, it will be easy both
to copy what we please in its appropriate place, and to find it there
again whenever we chance to have occasion. And perhaps, in this
first essay of ours, some things will be omitted (though we shall
endeavour not to seem to omit many things and those of principal
importance) but if any thing be omitted, it will claim its own
place, and (as it were) its proper receptacle, when our work passes
under a second review.
And since the new popery, which in general may be called
Jesuitism, differs widely from the old, and the former scholastic
mones eorura velut cancer et pestem fugiendo vitate, prsemonente Domino et
dicente, Cseci sunt et csecorum duces.]
[* Cave, Lector, ne legas; fuge viperam.]
[ 2 Sermonem serpentinae disputationis effundunt, atque veritatem eatho-
licam rertendo ad suae doctririse rabiem diabolico more traducunt, atque
ovium simplicitatem defraudant.]
PREFACE TO THE CONTROVERSIES. 19
divinity delivered many things much otherwise than they are now
maintained by the Roman church; we must, lest we should seem
to construe the doctrines of the papists otherwise than the practice
of the Roman church requires, or to take for granted what they
grant not, or to ascribe to them opinions which they disclaim, take
care to follow this order, namely, first to inquire what the
council of Trent hath determined upon every question, and then
to consult the Jesuits, the most faithful interpreters of that
council, and other divines, and our countrymen at Rheims amongst
the rest. And since Bellarmine hath handled these questions with
accuracy and method, and his lectures are in every body s hands,
we will make him, so to speak, our principal aim, and follow, as it
were, in his very footsteps.
Our arms shall be the sacred scriptures, that sword and shield
of the word, that tower of David, upon which a thousand bucklers
hang, and all the armour of the mighty, the sling and the
pebbles of the brook wherewith David stretched upon the ground
that gigantic and haughty Philistine. Human reasonings and tes
timonies, if one use them too much or out of place, are like the
armour of Saul, which was so far from helping David that it rather
unfitted him for the conflict. Jerom tells Theophilus of Alexandria,
that " a sincere faith and open confession requires not the artifice
and arguments of words 3 . * However, since we have to deal with
adversaries who, not content with these arms, use others with
more readiness and pleasure, such as decrees of councils, judg
ments of the fathers, tradition, and the practice of the church ;
lest perchance we should appear to shrink from the battle, we have
determined to make use of that sort of weapons also. And, indeed,
I hope to make it plain to you, that all our tenets are not only
founded upon scriptural authority, which is enough to ensure victory,
but command the additional suffrage of the testimonies of fathers,
councils, and, I will add, even of many of the papists, which is a
distinguished and splendid ornament of our triumph. In every
controversy, therefore, after the sacred scriptures of the old and new
Testaments, we shall apply to the councils, the fathers, and even to
our adversaries themselves ; so as to let you perceive that not only
the ancient authors, but even the very adherents of the Roman
church, may be adduced as witnesses in the cause. Thus it will be
clear, that what Jerome, Epist. 139, applies out of Isaiah to the
[ 3 Fides pura et aperta confessio non quserit strophas et argumenta
verborum. Epist. Ixii. ad Theophil.J
22
20 PREFACE TO THE CONTROVERSIES.
heretics, that "they weave the spider s thread," is pertinently
applied to the papists. For, as Jerome says, they weave a
web 1 " which can catch small and light animals, as flies and gnats,
but is broken by the stronger ones." Just thus many stick fast in
the subtleties of the papists, as flies do in the spider s web, from
which they are unable to extricate themselves, though nothing can
possibly be frailer than those threads. Such are the reasonings of
the papists, even the Jesuits themselves ; who, although they seem
to spin their threads with greater skill and artfulness, yet fabricate
nothing but such cobwebs as may easily be broken by any vigorous
effort. Be ye, therefore, of good cheer. We have a cause, believe
me, good, firm, invincible. We fight against men, and we have
Christ on our side ; nor can we possibly be vanquished, unless we
are the most slothful and dastardly of all cowards. Once wrest
from the papists what they adduce beside the scripture, and you
will presently see them wavering, turning pale, and unable to keep
their ground. Yet I do not ascribe to myself all those gifts of
genius, judgment, memory and knowledge, which are demanded
by such a laborious arid busy undertaking. I know well and
acknowledge how slightly I am furnished with such endowments ;
nor can any think so meanly of me as myself. But " I can do
all things through Christ who strengtheneth me ;" relying upon
whose assistance I enter upon the combat. They come against us
with sword, and shield, and armour : we. go against them in the
name of Jehovah of Hosts, of the armies of Israel, whom they have
defied.
But it is now time to distribute the controversies themselves
under their proper heads, that we may see beforehand the order in
which we are to proceed. Bellarmine hath reduced all the con
troversies to three articles of the Creed ; I believe in the Catholic
Church, the Communion of Saints, the Forgiveness of Sins. In
this respect 1 shall not follow Bellarmine. I have another, and
more certain, plan and method of my own. He could not frame
to his method the controversy concerning scripture, which assuredly
challenges the first place for its nobility and importance. He there
fore calls it a Proem, and says that he hath set it before the rest
in the manner of a preface. But since popery is nothing else but
mere antichristianism, it is evident that both must fall under the
same rule and method, and that popery must have in it all the
[* Quse parva et levia capere potest animalia, ut muscas et culices, a forti-
oribus statim rumpitur. Epist. cxxxix. ad Ctyprianum.]
PREFACE TO THE CONTROVERSIES. 21
heresies which belong to antichristianism. Now antichristianism
consists not in the open and outward denial of Christ, or in the
worn-out defence of obsolete heresies. For who would not imme-
mediately recognise, cry out against and explode, the patrons of
Cerinthus, Valentinus, Arius, Nestorius, and other heresiarchs of
the same complexion ? Who could tolerate amongst Christians him
who should openly and publicly deny Christ ? Antichrist was not
so stupid as to hope that he would gain much by such a course as
this. It was not fit, therefore, that antichrist should hold those
errors which may be generally described as touching the nature of
God, the mystery of the Trinity, the person of Christ. But, since
antichrist must needs be the opposite of Christ, the same purpose
must be gained in a more secret and more artful manner. For it
is a certain mystery of iniquity, which in words establishes Christ,
but in fact destroys him. This is the very antichristianism of the
papists, who leave indeed the natures of Christ intact, but make
away with the offices of Christ, and consequently Christ himself.
For Jesus cannot be Christ, if he bear not all his offices and merits.
Now these offices and benefits are designated by the very names
CHRIST and JESUS. All the heresies of the papists (a very few
excepted, which relate to his person,) concern these offices and
merits of Christ : on which account it will be no inconvenient dis
tribution of the popish errors and heresies, to set them forth as
they are tenets opposed to Christ and Jesus.
Survey now, I beseech you, this whole body of antichristianism,
as I shall submit it to your inspection, that you may see, as it were
in one view, a monster mis-shapen, vast, horrible, and manifold. For
I will present to you the very portraiture and lineaments, drawn
out and expressed as it were with one stroke of the pencil ; and
afterwards distribute and describe its limbs more accurately, when
we come to speak severally of each. The name of CHRIST denotes
three offices, as you know, of Prophet, King, and Priest. That
of JESUS sets before us the benefits of redemption and salvation ;
and these latter benefits result from the former offices. For he
was anointed to be our Prophet, King, and Priest, in order that he
might discharge the function of our Saviour. Now, therefore, we
should regard in Christ Jesus his offices and merits as well as his
person. In the former the papists are wholly astray : in regard of
his person they hold not many errors, but they have some. There
are then two chief heads of these controversies ; concerning the
.offices and benefits of Christ Jesus, and concerning his person.
22 PREFACE TO THE CONTROVERSIES.
Hear, therefore, what particular heresies they maintain against
Christ Jesus.
The first office is that of PROPHET, which shews that the func
tion of supreme teacher is to be ascribed to Christ. This saving
teaching Christ hath proposed to his church in the scriptures. In
defending this office of Christ against the papists we handle
these controversies concerning the scriptures ; of the number of the
canonical books of scripture ; of vernacular versions of scripture ;
of the perspicuity of scripture ; of the authority of scripture ; of
the interpretation of scripture ; of the perfection of scripture in
opposition to human traditions, upon which our adversaries lay
such weighty stress as to equal them even to the scriptures them
selves. How far from slight this controversy is, you readily
perceive.
The second office of Christ is the ROYAL, which all the
heretical opinions of the papists concerning the church impugn.
The kingdom of Christ is the church ; in it he reigns and is sole
monarch. This controversy is complex, and requires to be dis
tributed into its several parts. The church is either militant or
triumphant. We must dispute first of the militant, and afterwards
of the triumphant church. Our controversies concern either the
whole church militant, or the members of it. Of the whole
what it is ; of what sort ; whether visible ; by what notes dis
tinguished ; whether it may err ; what power it possesses ;
whether the Roman be the true visible church of Christ. Next,
we have to speak of the members of the church. These members
are either collected in a council (which is the representative church),
or considered separately. Here, therefore, we must treat of councils ;
whether they must needs be assembled ; by whom they should be
convoked ; of what persons they should consist ; what authority
they have ; who should be the chief president in a council ;
whether they are above the pope ; whether they may err. Next,
we come to the several members of the church. Now they are
divided into three classes. There is the principal member, or
head, the intermediate members, and the lowest. They affirm
the Roman pontiff to be the head of the church militant : where
upon the question arises of the form of the church s government ;
whether it be, or be not, monarchical ; whether the monarchy of the
church was settled upon Peter ; whether Peter was bishop of the
church of Rome, and died there ; whether the pope succeeds Peter
in his primacy; whether he may err; whether he can make laws
PREFACE TO THE CONTROVERSIES. 23
ecclesiastical ; whether he can canonize saints ; whether he hath
temporal power; whether he be antichrist. The intermediate
members are the clergy, of whom they make two sorts, some
secular, some regular. Those are called secular, who are engaged
in any ecclesiastical function. Now here arise controversies con
cerning the election and rank of these persons, whether celibacy-
be necessarily attached to the ministry, whether ministers be
exempt from the secular yoke. The regulars are monks and mem
bers of religious orders. Here we have to discourse of evangelical
counsels, of vows, of retirement, of the dress and labours of monks,
of the canonical hours. The lowest members, as they arrange
them, are laymen, even kings or emperors. Here we have to in
quire concerning the civil magistracy ; whether the care of religion
appertains to the civil magistrate ; whether he may punish heretics
capitally ; whether he can ever be excommunicated or deposed by
the pope ; whether civil laws oblige the conscience. And so far of
the church militant.
Next follows the church triumphant ; which consists of angels
and deceased saints. The controversies are, of the hierarchies,
ministry, and invocation of angels. When we come to deceased
saints, the occasion requires us to dispute, of the limbus patrum,
of purgatory ; whether saints are to be invoked and adored, of the
relics of saints, of the worship of images, of the temples of the
saints, of their festivals, of pilgrimages to their places : and these
controversies are concerning the royal office of Christ.
His third office is that of PRIEST, which includes two functions,
intercession and sacrifice. It pertains to intercession to inquire,
whether Christ be the sole mediator of intercession. In the question
of sacrifice, we shall have to explain the whole body of controversy
concerning the sacraments; for by the sacraments, as so many
means instituted by Christ, the efficacy of that sacrifice is derived
to us. We must treat of sacraments, first generally, and then
specially : generally, what a sacrament is, how many sacraments
there be, what is the efficacy of the sacraments, what the distinction
between the old and new sacraments : specially, concerning each
of the sacraments by itself; and first, of baptism, whether those
who die without baptism cannot be saved ; whether laymen or
women can baptize; whether John s baptism was the same as
Christ s ; whether the popish ceremonies are to be used in the ad
ministration of baptism. After the sacrament of baptism, we have
to speak of the eucharist, which topic contains most important con-
24 PREFACE TO THE CONTROVERSIES.
troversies, of transubstantiation, of the sacrifice of the mass, of com
munion in one kind. Next follow the five sacraments of the papists,
upon which great controversies depend, of confirmation, of penance
(where we shall have to treat of contrition, confession, satisfaction,
indulgences), of extreme unction, of orders, of matrimony ; and all
these controversies hitherto set forth belong to those three prime
offices, which are signified by the name of CHRIST.
Next we have to handle controversies concerning the benefits
of our redemption and salvation, which are indicated by the very
name of JESUS. Here first arise questions concerning predestination
and reprobation; whether God hath predestinated or reprobated
any persons, on what account he hath done so, whether predesti
nation be absolute. Next we have to treat of sin, what it is, how
manifold, whether all are born with the infection of original sin,
even the virgin Mary ; whether all sins be equal ; whether any sin
be venial of itself; whether concupiscence after baptism be sin;
whether God be the author of sin. Next in order, we must speak
of the law, whether it can be fulfilled, and even more done than
it commands. Afterwards we must explain the controversy con
cerning free-will ; faith, what it is and how manifold ; good works
and merits ; justification.
In the last place, there remain a few questions concerning the
person of Christ, as whether he is avroOeos ; whether he increased
in wisdom ; whether he suffered in his soul the pains of hell, and
whatever others there be of this sort.
You have now the principal classes and heads of those contro
versies which are contested with the greatest earnestness between
us and our adversaries at the present day. You see almost the
whole mass and body of the popish heresies. In considering, re
volving, and explicating these matters it becomes us now to be
wholly occupied. We must begin from the first, and proceed
through the intermediate to the last, at which we hope at length
to arrive, and pray that the issue may correspond to our hope and
wishes.
THE FIRST CONTROVERSY.
QUESTION I.
CHAPTER I.
WHEREIN THIS WHOLE CONTROVERSY IS DISTRIBUTED INTO ITS
PARTICULAR QUESTIONS.
WE will lay the foundation of this controversy in those words
of Christ which are to be found in the fifth chapter of St John s
Gospel at the thirty-ninth verse : Epevvare rets ypa&lt;pa&lt;;, SEARCH
THE SCRIPTURES. Christ had been commended to the Jews by
the testimony of John the Baptist. That testimony was most
true and honourable; and could not be despised by the Jews
themselves, amongst whom John lived in the highest respect and
estimation. Yet Christ declares that he had others greater, more
certain and more august than the testimony of John. He enume
rates three of them : first, the works which he performed ;
secondly, his Father who had sent him ; thirdly, the holy scrip
tures themselves, which he calls his witnesses. The Jews, indeed,
thought honourably of the scriptures, arid supposed that eternal
life might be found in them. Nor does Christ blame in the least
that judgment of theirs concerning the scriptures, but rather praises
it. He bids them go on to " search the scriptures ;" he inflames in
every way their zeal for the scriptures, and sharpens their industry.
For he exhorts them not only to read, but search and thoroughly
examine the scriptures : he would not have them content with a
slight perusal, but requires an assiduous, keen, laborious diligence
in examining and investigating their meaning, such as those apply
who search with anxious toil for treasures buried in the earth.
Now since Christ hath bid us search the scriptures without
exception, not this part, or that part, or the other, it is mani
fest that in these words we are commanded to search the whole of
scripture ; not to confine ourselves to certain portions of it, while
we despise or overlook the rest. All parts give plain testimony to
Christ. But the scriptures are praised by the papists, as well as
26 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
highly esteemed by us ; nor is there any controversy, whether
the scriptures are to be searched. But concerning the due man
ner of searching them, and who they are to whom that care
appertains, and concerning the scriptures themselves, which we all
unanimously affirm should be searched, there is a most important con
troversy, which I shall now attempt to explain. In order to effect
this clearly and methodically, I think it may be all divided into six
questions, after the following manner.
We are commanded to search the scriptures : and for that
purpose we must first understand, what are those genuine books
of scripture, in searching and turning over which it behoves us to
be occupied. The first question therefore shall be, Of the num
ber of the canonical books of scripture.
We are commanded to search the scriptures : and therefore
we must next consider, to whom this precept is addressed ; whether
only to the learned, and those skilled in the ancient languages,
or to all the faithful. The second question therefore shall be,
Of versions of the scripture and sacred rites in the vulgar
tongue.
We are commanded to search the scriptures: whence it appears
that the scriptures enjoy a very high dignity and authority, since
Christ himself appeals and refers us to them. The third question
therefore shall be, Of the authority of scripture ; whether it have
this so great credibility and dignity of itself, and from the Holy
Ghost its author, or from the testimony of the church.
We are commanded to search the scriptures : whence some
hope appears to be shewn that we shall come to understand them,
and gain much profit by the search, if we do as we are commanded.
Therefore the fourth question shall be, Of the perspicuity of
scripture.
We are commanded to search the scripture; that is, to seek
and investigate the true sense of scripture, since the scripture lies
wholly in the meaning. Therefore the fifth question shall be, Of
the interpretation of scripture ; how it is to be interpreted, and
who has the right and authority of interpretation.
We are commanded to search the scripture : and under the
name of scripture the written word of God is plainly understood.
Here then we must consider whether we are only bound to search
the scripture, or whether, beside the scripture, something else be
commended to our investigations. Therefore the sixth and last
question shall be, Of the perfection of scripture ; which I shall
I.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 27
prove to be so absolutely complete that we should wholly acquiesce
in it, and need desire nothing more, and that unwritten traditions
are by no means necessary for us.
These questions I purpose to treat in the order in which I have
proposed them.
CHAPTER II.
CONCERNING THE STATE OF THE FIRST QUESTION.
THE books of scripture are called canonical, because they con
tain the standard and rule of our faith and morals. For the scrip
ture is in the church what the law is in a state, which Aristotle
in his Politics calls a canon or rule. As all citizens are bound to
live and behave agreeably to the public laws, so Christians should
square their faith and conduct by the rule and law of scripture.
So, in Eusebius 1 , the holy fathers accuse Paul of Samosata of
departing from the rule (aTroa-rck CLTTO TOV KO.VOVOS), and becoming
the author of an heretical opinion. So Tertullian, in his book
against Hermogenes 2 , calls the scripture the rule of faith; and
Cyprian says, in his discourse upon the baptism of Christ : " One
will find that the rules of all doctrine are derived from this scrip
ture ; and that, whatever the discipline of the church contains
springs hence, and returns hither 3 ." Chrysostom too, in his 13th
OTTOV 8e a7roo~Ta$ TOV KO.VOVOS Ctrl Ki/33f/Aa KOI voBa
, ovSei/ 6el TOV ea&gt; OVTOS ray Trpd^eis Kpivfiv, H. E. VII. 30. T. 3. p.
391. ed. Heinich. Lips. 1828. But it is most probably the Creed that is
there meant.]
[ 2 Whitaker most probably refers to the famous passage, c. xxii. " Adoro
plcnitudinem scripturse," &c. cited below, Qu. 6. c. xvi., and produced also
by Cosin (Scholastical History of the Canon, chap. i. . 1.) in proof that the
Church always regarded scripture as "the infallible RULE of our FAITH."
Some, however, suppose that Tertullian refers to scripture, and not the
Creed, in these words : " Solemus hsereticis compendii gratia de posteritate
prscscribere : in quantum enim veritatis regula prior, quse etiam futuras
hcereses prcenuntiavit, in tantum posteriores quseque doctrines hsereses prse-
judicabuntur." Adv. Hermog. i. (Opp. P. iv. p. 1. ed. Leopold. Lipsise, 1841.)
For the Creed contains no prediction of heresies.]
[ 3 This treatise, falsely ascribed to Cyprian, may be found in the works
of Arnold ofChartres (Carnotensis) subjoined to Fell s Cyprian (Amstel. 1691).
The passage cited is at p. 33 : " Inveniet ex hac scriptura omnium doctrina-
28 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
Homily upon 2 Corinthians calls scripture the exact balance, and
standard, and rule of all things." For the same reason Augustine
affirms, that " whatever belongs to faith and moral life may be
found in the scriptures 1 ;" and he calls the scripture the scales, in
the following passage : " Let us not apply deceitful scales, where
we may weigh what we wish, and as we wish ; but let us bring
God^s own scales from the holy scriptures," &c.
So Basil calls the sacred doctrine " the canon of rectitude and
rule of truth," which fails in no part of perfection : and Ruffinus,
in his exposition of the creed, after enumerating the books of
scripture, adds, " These are the books which the fathers included
in the canon, and from which they willed that the assertions of our
faith should be demonstrated 2 ;" and then he subjoins: "From
these fountains of the divine word our cups are to be drawn 3 ."
Aquinas too lays down, that " the doctrine of the apostles and
prophets is called canonical, because it is, as it were, the rule of
our intellect 4 ." Hence it plainly appears why the scriptures are
called canonical ; because they prescribe to us what we must
believe, and how we ought to live : so that we should refer to this
test our whole faith and life, as the mason or architect squares his
work by the line and plummet. Hence, too, we may perceive that
the scripture is perfect, since otherwise the title of canon or rule
could hardly be applied to it ; upon which point we shall have to
speak under the sixth question.
Now these books, which are called canonical, are comprised in
the old and new Testaments, and are therefore styled Testa
mentary. So Eusebius calls these books evSiaOqicous 5 ; and Nice-
phorus often uses the same term. Some also call them S
rum regulas emanasse ; et hinc nasci, et hue reverti, quidquid ecclesiastica
continet disciplina." But Arnold is not speaking of the whole scripture, but
of the command to love God.]
f 1 See these passages cited more fully below. Qu. 6. c. 16.]
[ 2 Hsec sunt quse patres intra canonem concluserunt ; ex quibus fidei
nostrse assertiones constare voluerunt. Ad Calc. Opp. Cypriani, p. 26, ut
supra.]
[ 3 Hsec nobis a patribus, ut dixi, tradita opportunum visum est hoc in
loco designare, ad instructionem eorum qui prima sibi ecclesise ac fidei
elementa suscipiunt, ut sciant ex quibus sibi fontibus verbi Dei haurienda
eint pocula. Ibid. p. 27.]
[ 4 Doctrina apostolorum et prophetarum canonica dicitur, quia est quasi
regula intellectus nostri. Thomse Aquin. in 1 Tim. vi. Lect. 1.]
[ 5 H. E. Lib. V. C. 25. OVK cvdiodqieovr pry, dXXa KCU ai
II.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 29
*ypa(povs. The question, then, between us and the papists is,
YVhat books are to be esteemed canonical and testamentary. Con
cerning many, and indeed the principal ones, we are agreed : con
cerning some we are at variance. But, in order that the true state
of this question may be understood, we must see, in the first place,
what the council of Trent hath determined upon this subject. Its
words are as follows : " The synod hath deemed it fitting that a
catalogue of the sacred books should be subjoined to this decree,
lest any should have occasion to doubt what books are received by
it 6 ." Then it recites the books which are truly canonical, and
are received by us without any hesitation. But it subjoins others
which we do not acknowledge as canonical. Such are these six
books : Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, two books of Mac
cabees. These are the books of the old Testament. Afterwards,
it enumerates the books of the new Testament, all of which we
receive without any controversy, although they were not always
alike received in the church, as you shall hear in the sequel.
Finally, the council concludes in these words : " Whoever does not
receive these books entire with all their parts, as they are con
tained in the ancient Latin Vulgate, for sacred and canonical, let
him be accursed 7 !" Here you have the decree of the Tridentine
council, and the terrible sanction of that decree. From these pre
mises it now appears that we are required by the Tridentine
fathers, if we would escape their anathema, to receive as autho
ritative canonical scripture not only those six entire books which
we have mentioned, but besides certain parts of and additions to
the books, as Baruch, the Hymn of the three Children, the histo
ries of Susannah and Bel and the Dragon, which are attributed to
Daniel, and certain apocryphal chapters of the book of Esther :
for it is thus that the Jesuits interpret the meaning of this decree.
Now, therefore, the state of the question is this ; whether these
books, and these parts of books, should be received for sacred and
canonical scriptures ? They affirm : we deny. It remains that we
should proceed to the discussion. I will first answer their arguments,
and then proceed to the defence of our cause ; which course I
[ 6 Sacrorum vero librorum indicem huic decreto adhibendum censuit, no
cui dubitatio suboriri possit, quinain sint, qui ab ipsa synodo suscipiuntur.
Concil. Trid. Sess. iv. Decret. l.J
[? Si quis autem hos libros ipsos integros cum omnibus suis partibus,
prout in ecclesia catholica legi consueverunt, et in veteri vulgata editiono
habentur, pro sacris et canonicis non susceperit. . . . Anathema sit. Ibid.]
30 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
intend to follow throughout, because I deem it most suitable to the
matter we have in hand, and I perceive that it hath been gene
rally adopted by Aristotle. And since, as Nazianzen tells us,
" every argument is designed either to establish our own opinion,
or overturn the opposite 1 ," I will choose first to overturn the oppo
site opinion, and then to establish my own.
CHAPTER III.
CONCERNING THOSE HERETICS WHO WERE GUILTY OF SACRILEGE
AGAINST THE SACRED AND CANONICAL SCRIPTURES.
BUT, before I proceed, I deem it necessary for you to censure
the madness of certain ancient heretics, who impiously removed
some certain and undoubted parts of scripture from the sacred
canon. Such heretics, indeed, there were in great numbers, as we
read in Irenseus, Tertullian, Epiphanius, Augustine, and others.
I shall not endeavour to go through them all, but will enumerate
for you the principal.
First of all, the Sadducees received no scriptures but the five
books of Moses 2 . This many suppose to have been the reason
why Christ (Matt, xxii.) refutes the Sadducees denying the resur
rection, by the testimony of the Mosaic scripture. Simon, follow
ing in their steps, declared that the prophets were not at all to be
regarded; as Irena3us testifies 3 , Lib. i. c. 20. The Manichees
rejected the whole old Testament, as proceeding from the evil God :
for they imagined two gods, the one good and the other evil. Epi
phanius has treated upon this subject, Ha3res. Ixvi. So Saturninus
rejected the God of the Jews, and consequently the whole old
Testament, as Irena3us tells us, Lib. I. c. 22 4 . The impious Mar-
cion insulted with a load of reproaches the God who is preached in
the law and the prophets, and held that Christ had come to dis-
[! AITTOI) OVTOS Xoyov Travrbs, rov /zei&gt; TO oiKfiov Karao-Kcva^ovros, rov de rb
avriiraXov dvaTpetrovTos. Orat. xxxv. p. 562. A. Nazianz. Opp. T. I. Colon. 1690.]
[ 2 This common notion is reasonably doubted by many. See Jortin s
Remarks, B. xi. Appendix 1, on the Sadducees, Vol. i. p. 439.]
[ 3 Prophetas autem a mundi fabricatoribus angelis inspiratos dixisse pro-
phetias ; quapropter nee ulterius curarent eos hi, qui in eum et in Selenen
ejus spem habeant. P. 116. B. ed. Fevard. Paris. 1685.]
[ 4 Judseorum Deum unum ex angelis esse dixit, et . . . advenisse Christum
ad destructionem Judseorum Dei Prophetias autem quasdam quidem
III.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 31
solve the law and the prophets, and the works of that God who
made the world. This Irenaeus tells us 5 , Lib. I. c. 29. Such frantic
men Christ himself expressly refutes by his own words, when he
says, that he did not come to destroy the law and the prophets,
but to fulfil. Matt. v. 17. This heresy Augustine also imputes to
the Cerdonians, whom he affirms to hold the old Testament in con
tempt 6 , (Ad Quod vult Deum, c. 21), and to the Severians, of
whom he writes, " They condemn the resurrection of the flesh and
the old Testament 7 ," (ibid. c. 24.) Guido Cameracensis reckons
this also amongst the heresies of the Albigenses. This heresy is
refuted by Epiphanius, in the place which I have already cited,
and most copiously by Augustine against Faustus the Manichee,
and against the adversary of the law and the prophets.
The Ptolemasans condemned the books of Moses 8 , as Epipha
nius relates, Haeres. xxxiii. The Nicolaitans and Gnostics ejected
the book of Psalms from the sacred canon, as Philaster informs us,
(in Lib. de Haar. c. 127) ; which heresy the Anabaptists have
renewed in our times. But all these heretics are refuted by the
clearest evidence of the new Testament.
Many formerly, as Philaster relates (in Cat. c. 132, 133),
rejected the books of Solomon, and especially Ecclesiastes and
the Song of Songs ; because in the former Solomon seems to invite
men to a life of pleasure, and in the latter, to relate certain
amatory discourses between himself and Pharaoh s daughter. But
it is plain that these men fell into a manifest and impious error.
For in Ecclesiastes Solomon does not allure men to enjoy tho
pleasures and blandishments of the world, but rather deters them
from such pleasures, and exhorts them, with a divine eloquence, to
ab iis angelis qui mundum fabricaverunt dictas ; quasdam autem a Satana,
quern et ipsum angelum adversarium mundi fabricator! bus ostendit ; maxime
autem Judseorum Deo. Ibid. p. 118, c.]
[ 5 Marcion . . . impudorate blasphemans eum qui a lege et prophetis an-
nunciatus est Deus . . . Jesum autem [dicens] . . . venientem in Judseam . . .
dissolventem prophetas et legem, et omnia opera ejus Dei qui mundum
fecit. Ibid. p. 129, A.]
[ 6 Resurrectionem mortuorum negat, spernens etiam Testamentum Vetus.
Augustini Opp. T. vm. col. 43, A. Paris. 1837.]
[7 Carnis resurrectionem cum Vetere Testamento respuentes. Ibid, c.]
[ 8 Ilapa yap roiy flprjp.evois Sfat rov vopov TOV 0eoO rov dca Mwa-eas
P\ao-&lt;pT]na&gt;v OVK aurxwerat. Ed. Petav. Colon. 1682. T. I. p. 216. See the
curious epistle of Ptolemseus to Flora, which he there subjoins, given also by
Grabe, Spicil. 11. 69.]
32 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
despise and contemn the present world. Thus at the very com
mencement he exclaims, " Vanity of vanities, all is vanity :"
in which words he declares that all those things which are sought
after in this world, are uncertain, transitory, and fallacious. Whence
it necessarily follows that those are mad who acquiesce in the
enjoyment of such objects. And so (after having disputed through
the whole book against those who pursue these pleasures so
greedily, and desire to satisfy themselves with such goods, what
ever they are) he at the close teaches that happiness consists not,
as many suppose, in things of this kind, but in true piety, and
thus concludes: "Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this
is the whole of man." This is not the judgment of an Epicurus,
but of a holy prophet, withdrawing foolish men from the pursuit
of worthless objects, and recalling .them into the true path of a
pious and a happy life.
In the Song, if Solomon had wished to praise his wife, he
would not have used such prodigious and absurd comparisons. For
he compares her to the cavalry of Pharaoh, her head to Carmel,
her eyes to fish-ponds, her nose to a tower, her teeth to a
flock of sheep ; and finally pronounces her whole person terrible
as an army. Such things do not suit the daughter of Pharaoh
and the bride of Solomon. They must, therefore, be referred
to the mystic bride of another Solomon, that is, to the Church
of Christ, whose consummate union of faith and love with her
spouse this whole book sets forth; as, indeed, all men of sound
judgment have always determined. Nor is the fact, that none of
the customary names of God occur in this book, any proof that
it is not canonical. For, although such names are omitted, yet
others are used of the same kind and importance, as shepherd,
brother, friend, beloved, spouse, which were much more suitable to
the style of such a piece : since he, whom the bride so often
addresses under these names, is no other than Christ, at once the
true Son of God, and the true God himself.
We care little for the impious Anabaptists, who reject this book
with contempt; nor can we at all excuse Castalio 1 , if he really wrote
P I write the name thus in conformity with Whitaker s usage ; but the
correct form is Castellio. See the curious history of the origin of the other
form in Bayle, CASTALIO, Rem. M. Wi% respect to the imputation men
tioned in the text, Varillas charges it upon Castellio more definitely, stating
this injurious opinion of the Canticles to be avowed by him in his argument
to that book. Bayle observes, that in five editions of Castellio s bible which he
III.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 33
what some object to him ; that this book is nothing but a conver
sation which Solomon held with his Sularnith.
The Anabaptists are said, at the present day, to reject and
ridicule the book of Job, and some have written that it is called
by those heretics a Hebrew Tragi- Comedy. This they would seem
to have learned from the wicked Jews : for certain rabbins,
authors of the Talmudic fables, affirm 2 that it is a fictitious story,
and no such man ever existed. The impudence of these persons is
refuted by other testimonies of scripture. For, in Ezekiel xiv. 14,
the Lord says : " If these three men were in the midst thereof,
Noah, Daniel, and Job, &c." Whence we perceive that Job must
have really existed, as no one doubts that Noah and Daniel did.
Paul too cites a clear testimony from this book (1 Cor. iii. 19) :
" He taketh the wise in their own craftiness ;" which words we
find, in Job v. 13, to have been pronounced by Eliphaz. The
apostle James, also, hath mentioned this man, James v. 11. Hence
it is manifest that this was a true history, and that the book itself
is canonical, and that they who determine otherwise are to be
esteemed as heretics.
Jerome, in the Proem of his Commentaries on Daniel 3 , relates
that Porphyry the philosopher wrote a volume against the book of
our prophet Daniel, and affirmed that what is now extant under
the name of Daniel, was not published by the ancient prophet, but
by some later Daniel, who lived in the times of Antiochus Epipha-
nes. But we need not regard what the impious Porphyry may
have written, who mocked at all the scriptures and religion itself,
examined, he could find no argument to that book whatever. However, in tho
London edition of the Latin bible (in 4 vols. 12mo. 1726), there is the follow
ing : " Colloquium Servatoris et Ecclesice. Domestic! in Ecclesise (Ecclesia)
hostes. Servator, lilium Columba. Solomo Christi Imago. Ad puellas vir,
et ad virum puellae. Ecclesise pulchritudo. Servatoris in Ecclesiam Stu-
dium. Ecclesia vinea copiosa."]
[ 2 Nosti quosdam esse, qui dicunt Jobum nunquam fuisse, neque creatum
esse; sed historiam ejus nihil aliud esse quam parabolam. Maimonides,
Moreh Nevoch. par. in. c. 22. Compare Manasseh Ben Israel, de Resurr.
Mort. p. 123.]
[ 3 Contra prophetam Danielem duodecimum librum scripsit Porphyrius,
nolens eum ab ipso, cujus inscriptus est nomine, esse compositum, sed a quo-
dam qui temporibus Antiochi Epiphanis fuerit in Judsea ; et non tarn Danie
lem ventura dixisse, quam ilium narrasse prseterita. T. in. p. 1071, &c. ed.
Bened.]
-i 3
[WHITAKER.]
34 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
and whose calumnies were refuted by Eusebius, Apollinarius and
Methodius 1 , as Jerome testifies in the above-cited place. So far
concerning the old Testament.
The new Testament, also, was formerly assaulted in various
ways by heretics and others. The Manichees shewed themselves
no less impious and sacrilegious towards the books of the new Tes
tament than they were towards those of the old. They were not
afraid to say that the books of the apostles and evangelists were
stuffed full of lies : which madness and frenzy of theirs Augustine
hath most learnedly confuted in his thirty-second book against
Faustus the Manichee.
Others received no gospel but that of Luke, and hardly any
other part of the new Testament ; as Cerdon and his disciple Marcion.
Tertullian speaks of these towards the end of his Prescriptions 2 :
" Cerdon receives only the gospel of Luke, nor even that entire.
He takes the epistles of Paul, but neither all of them, nor in their
integrity. He rejects the Acts of the Apostles and the Apocalypse
as false. After him appeared his disciple, Marcion by name, who
endeavoured to support the heresy of Cerdon." These men took
away almost the whole contents of the new Testament.
The Valentinians admitted no gospel but that of John, as Ire-
nseus tells us 3 ; (Lib. in. c. 11.) which error the papists charge on
Luther also, but most falsely, as they themselves well know. The
Alogians 4 , on the contrary, rejected all John s writings, and were
so called because they would not acknowledge as God the Logos,
[* Cui solertissime responderunt Csesariensis Episcopus Apollinarius
quoque et ante hos, ex parte, Methodius. Ibid.]
[ 2 Solum Evangelium Lucse, nee totum recipit, Apostoli Pauli neque om-
nes neque totas epistolas sumit; Acta Apostolorum et Apocalypsin quasi
falsa rejicit. Post hunc discipulus ipsius emersit, Marcion quidam nomine. . .
hceresin Cerdonis approbare conatus est. c. 51. This piece, which forms
the concluding part of the Prescriptions (from c. 45), seems the work of
some later hand.]
[ 3 Hi autem qui a Valentino sunt, eo quod est secundum Joannem ple-
nissime utentes ad ostensionem conjugationum suarum, ex ipso detegentur
nihil recto dicentes. p. 258, D.]
[ 4 Lardner, History of Heretics, chap. 23 (Works, 4to ed., Vol. IV. p. 690),
considers the existence of such a heresy very doubtful; but I cannot see
sufficient ground for all his suspicions. However, it is hard to believe that
any men in their senses ever ascribed all John s writings to Cerinthus, as
Epiphanius seems to say, p. 424.]
III.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 35
whom John declares to be God in the beginning of his gospel.
This is related by Epiphanius (Haor. Lib. i.), who gave them this
appellation upon that account.
Irenaeus relates 5 (Lib. i. c. 26.), that the Ebionites received
only the gospel according to Matthew, and rejected the apostle
Paul as an apostate from the law.
The Severians made no account of the Acts of the Apostles, as
Eusebius informs us, Lib. iv. c. 27 6 .
The Marcionites rejected both epistles to Timothy, the epistle
to Titus, and the epistle to the Hebrews, as Epiphanius records,
Chrysostom and Jerome 8 , in the Preface to the epistle of Paul
to Philemon, testify that it was by some not received as canonical ;
which conclusion they were led into by considering that human
frailty could not bear the continual uninterrupted action of the
Holy Ghost, and that the apostles must have spoken some things
by a mere human spirit. Amongst these they classed this epistle,
as containing in it nothing worthy of an apostolic and divine au
thority, or useful to us. Chrysostom 9 refutes this opinion, with
much truth and beauty, in the Argument of this epistle, and teaches
us that many noble and necessary lessons may be learned from it:
first, that we should extend our solicitude to the meanest persons :
secondly, that we should not despair of slaves, (and therefore, still
less of freemen,) however wicked and abandoned : thirdly, that it is
not lawful for any one to withdraw a slave from his master under
pretence of religion : fourthly, that it is our duty not to be ashamed
of slaves, if they be honest men. Who now will say that this
epistle is useless to us, from which we may learn so many and
[ 5 Solo autem eo quod est secundum Matthseum Evangelic utuntur, et
Apostolum Paulum recusant, apostatam esse eum Legis dicentes. p. 127, c.]
[6 ~B\acr(pr]iJiovvTs 8e Hav\ov TOV drrocrToXov, aQeTOV&w ai/TOv TO.S eViOToXas-,
/MTySe TO.S Trpd^eis ra&gt;i&gt; a7roo"rdAcor&gt; KaraSe^d^tevot. T. I. p. 409.]
[^ ETriOToAaff nap UVTM TOV dyiov aTrocrrdAou Se/ca, ais p.6vais K}(pi)TCU. . 9.
T. I. p. 309. D.]
[ 8 Volunt aut epistolam non esse Pauli, quse ad Philemonem scribitur ;
aut etiam si Pauli sit, nihil habere quod edificare nos possit. Hieron. prref.
in Ep. ad. Philem. T. iv. p. 442.]
[ 9 The best edition of Chrysostom s admirable Commentary on the epistle
to Philemon is that by Raphelius, subjoined to Vol. n. of his Annotationes
Philologicse. Lugd. Bat. 1747. The reader will find the passage here re
ferred to at pp. 28, 30, 32.]
32
36 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
such distinguished lessons ? Forasmuch, therefore, as this epistle
was both written by Paul, and contains in it such excellent in
struction, it ought not by any means to be rejected.
Such, then, was the opinion, or rather the mad raving of the
heretics concerning the sacred books. There were others also, who
either rejected altogether certain books and parts of books of the
new Testament, or else allowed them no great authority, whom it is
not necessary to enumerate : for we must not spend too much time in
recording or refuting such persons. But the Schwenkfeldtians 1 and
Libertines, proceeding to a still greater length in their wickedness,
despise the whole scripture, and insult it with many reproaches,
holding that we should attend not to what the scriptures speak,
but to what the Spirit utters and teaches us internally. Of these,
Hosius Polonus writes thus, in his book concerning the express
word of God : " \Ye will dismiss the scriptures, and rather listen
to God speaking to us, than return to those beggarly elements.
One is not required to be learned in the law and scriptures, but to
be taught of God. Vain is the labour which is expended upon
scripture : for the scripture is a creature and a beggarly sort of
element 2 ." Many passages of scripture condemn this monstrous
heresy. Christ says : " Search the scriptures." Paul says :
" Whatsoever things were written of old time were written for our
learning." Rom. xv. 4. And elsewhere : " All scripture is given
by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for correction,
for reproof, and for instruction in righteousness." 2 Tim. iii. 16.
There are innumerable such testimonies, by which the authority of
the scriptures is fully proved, and the blasphemy of these men
refuted ; against which our divines have also written many ex
cellent discourses.
At the same time that we justly condemn the heresies which
I have mentioned, we cannot but wholly disapprove the opinion of
those, who think that the sacred writers have, in some places, fallen
t 1 So called from Gaspar Schwenckfeldt, a Silesian knight, and counsellor
to the Duke of Lignitz, who died in 1561. See an account of him in Mos-
heim, Cent. xvi. Sect. ill. part n. c. 1, 23, 24.]
[ 2 Nos . . . ipsas scripturas . . . facessere jubebimus, et Deum loquentem
potius audiemus, . . . quam ad egena ista elementa nos convertamus. . . . Non
oportet legis et scripturse peritum esse, sed a Deo doctum. Yanus est labor
qui scripturse impenditur : scriptura enim creatura est, et egenum quoddam
elementum. Hos. Op. Col. 1584. De express. Dei Verbo. Tom. i. p. 624.]
III.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 37
into mistakes. That some of the ancients were of this opinion
appears from the testimony of Augustine, who maintains, in oppo
sition to them 3 , " that the evangelists are free from all falsehood,
both from that which proceeds from deliberate deceit, and that
which is the result of forgetfulness." (De Cons. Ev. Lib. n. c. 12.)
Consequently, Jerome judged wrong, if he really judged, as Erasmus
supposes 4 , "that the evangelists might have fallen into an error of
memory." Erasmus himself, indeed, determines that it is neither
impious nor absurd to think so ; and allows it possible that Matthew,
for instance, in that place of his 27th chapter, may have put the
name of Jeremiah instead of Zechariah. Upon which place Erasmus
writes thus : " But although this were a slip of memory merely in
the name, I do not suppose that one ought to be so over-scrupulous
as that the authority of the whole scripture should seem invalidated
on that account 5 . But it does not become us to be so easy and
indulgent as to concede that such a lapse could be incident to the
sacred writers. They wrote as they were moved by the Holy
Ghost, as Peter tells us, 2 Pet. i. 21. And all scripture is inspired
of God, as Paul expressly writes, 2 Tim. iii. 16. Whereas, there
fore, no one may say that any infirmity could befall the Holy
Spirit, it follows that the sacred writers could not be deceived, or
err, in any respect. Here, then, it becomes us to be so scrupulous
as not to allow that any such slip can be found in scripture. For,
whatever Erasmus may think, it is a solid answer which Augustine
gives to Jerome : " If any, even the smallest, lie be admitted in
the scriptures, the whole authority of scripture is presently inva
lidated and destroyed 6 ." That form which the prophets use so
[ 3 Omnem autem falsitatem abesse ab Evangelistis decet, non solum earn
quse mentiendo promitur, sed etiam earn quae obliviscendo. Aug. Opp. T. HI.
P. n. 1310. B.]
[ 4 Erasmus (loc. infra citat.) gives Jerome s own words from his epistle
de optima genere interpretandi : Accusent Apostolum falsitatis, quod nee cum
Hebraico nee cum Septuaginta congruat translatoribus, et, quod his majus
est, erret in nomine : pro Zacharia quippe Hieremiam posuit. Sed absii hoc
de pedissequo Christi dicere, cui curse fuit non verba et syllabas aucupari,
sed sententias dogmatum ponere. Epist. ci. T. n. p. 334. Antv. 1579.]
[ 5 Ceterum etiamsi fuisset in nomine duntaxat memorise lapsus, non opi-
nor quemquam adeo morosum esse oporteret, ut ob earn causam totius scrip-
turse sacrse labasceret auctoritas. Erasm. Annot. p. 107. Froben. Basil. 1535.]
[ 6 Si mendacium aliquod in scripturis vel levissimum admittatur, scrip-
turae auctoritatem omnem mox labefactari ac convelli. This is the quotation
as given by Whitaker in his text. The following is probably the passage
38 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ciI.
often, " Thus saith the Lord," is to be attributed also to the apostles
and evangelists. For the Holy Spirit dictated to them whatever
things they wrote ; whose grace (as Ambrose writes, Lib. n. in Luc.)
"knows nothing of slow struggles 1 ." Hence neither can that be
tolerated which Melchior Canus has alleged, (Lib. n. c. 18. ad 6)
in explanation of a certain difficulty in the Acts of the Apostles,
chap. vii. 16 ; where Stephen says, that Abraham bought a se
pulchre from the sons of Emmor, whereas Moses relates that the
sepulchre was purchased by Jacob, not by Abraham. Canus thinks
that Stephen might have made a mistake in relating so long a
history, but that Luke committed no error, since he faithfully re
corded what Stephen said 2 . But that answer draws the knot tighter,
instead of loosing it : for Stephen was not only full of the Holy
Ghost, but is even said to have spoken by the Holy Ghost. Acts
vi. 10. Stephen, therefore, could no more have mistaken than
Luke ; because the Holy Ghost was the same in Luke and in
Stephen, and had no less force in the one than in the other. Be
sides, if we concede that Stephen mistook or was deceived, I do not
see how he can excuse Luke for not rectifying the error. Therefore
we must maintain intact the authority of scripture in such a sense
as not to allow that anything is therein delivered otherwise than the
most perfect truth required. Wherefore I cannot understand with
what degree of prudence and consideration Jerome can have written
that, which he says is to be noted, in his Questions upon Genesis :
" Wherever the apostles or apostolical men speak to the people,
they generally use those testimonies which had gotten into common
use amongst the nations 3 ."
intended : Admisso enim semel in tantum auctoritatis fastigium officioso ali-
quo mendacio, nulla illorum librorum particula remanebit, &c. Epist. xix.
Tom. ii. p. 14.]
[! Nescit tarda molimina Sancti Spiritus gratia, c. xix. Ambros. Opp.
T. v. p. 46. Paris. 1838.]
[ 2 Stephano id quod vulgo solet accidisse, ut in longa videlicet narratione,
eademque prsesertim subita, confuderit nonnulla et miscuerit, in quibusdam
etiam memoria lapsus fuerit ; . . . . Lucas vero, historise veritatem retinere
volens, ne iota quidem immutavit, sed rem ut a Stephano narrata erat ex-
posuit. Melch. Cani Loc. Theolog. fol. 89. 2. Colon. Agripp. 1585.]
[ 3 Ubicunque Sancti Apostoli aut Apostolici viri loquuntur ad populos,
iis plerumque testimoniis abutuntur, quse jam fuerant in gentibus divulgata.
Hieron. Qusest. Hebr. in Genes. T. in. p. 468.]
IV.] QUESTION THE FIRST.
CHAPTER IV.
WHEREIN THE ARGUMENT OF THE ADVERSARIES IS PROPOSED
AND CONFUTED.
HAVING now premised a brief explanation of these matters, we
will come to the discussion of the cause and question proposed. And
first, we shall have to treat of the six entire books, Tobit, Judith,
Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and the two books of Maccabees, all together;
and then, of those several books taken separately, as likewise of
those fragments and parts of books, Esther, Baruch, &c.
Our adversaries have but one argument in behalf of these
books, which is derived from the authority of certain councils and
fathers. They allege, in the first place, the third council of Carthage,
(in which Augustine himself bore a part,) can. 47 4 , wherein all
these books are counted canonical. Should any one object, that
this council was only provincial, not general, and that its judgment
is, therefore, of less consequence ; our antagonists proceed to shew,
that this council was confirmed by pope Leo IV. (Dist. 20. C. de
libellis), and also in the sixth general council held at Constantinople,
which is called Trullan, can. 2. Hence they argue, that although
the decree of the council of Carthage might not, perhaps, be strong
enough of itself to prove this point, yet, since it is confirmed by
the authority of this pope and of a general council, it hath in it as
much efficacy as is required to be in any council. Besides, they
adduce the council of Florence under Eugenius IV. (in Epistol.
ad Armenos), that of Trent under Paul III. (sess. 4), and pope
Gelasius with a council of seventy bishops 5 . Of fathers, they cite
Innocent I., who was also a pope, in his third Epistle to Exuperius
of Tholouse ; Augustine, Lib. 11. c. 8. De Doctrina Christiana ;
Isidore of Seville, Etymolog., Lib. vi. c. 1. So that the argument
of our opponents runs thus : these councils and these fathers affirm
these books to belong to the sacred canon ; therefore, these books
are canonical. In order to make this argument valid, we must
take as our medium this proposition : whatsoever these councils and
these fathers determine is to be received without dispute. We may
then add to it, But these councils and these fathers receive these
books as canonical ; therefore these books are truly canonical and
[4 Mansi, Collect. Concil. Tom. m. p. 891.]
[ 5 Vide infra, or in Mansi, T. vm. p. 146.]
40 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [dl.
divine : otherwise there will be no consequence in the reasoning.
Now let us answer somewhat more clearly and distinctly.
In the first place, we deny the major proposition of this syl
logism. We must not concede that whatever those councils
determine, and whatever those fathers affirm, is always true: for it
is the special prerogative of scripture, that it never errs. There
fore, it is manifest that nothing can be concluded from these testi
monies which hath the force of a certain and necessary argument.
In the second place, the council of Florence was held one hun
dred and fifty years ago, and the council of Trent in our own times,
and this latter for the express purpose and design of establishing all
the errors of the popish church. These both were no legitimate
councils of Christian men, but tyrannous conventicles of antichrist,
held for the object of opposing the truth of the gospel. How ge
neral that of Trent was, in its fourth session, may be appreciated
from the number of the bishops who were present in that session.
The legates, cardinals, archbishops, and bishops, who were then
present, and who published this decree concerning the number of
the canonical books, made in all about fifty ; and those, almost to
a man, Italians and Spaniards. Where the attendance was so thin,
it was impossible that any general council could be held. Yet Ala-
nus Copus (in Dialog. Quint, c. 16.) says, that there were fewer
bishops in many famous councils than at Trent 1 . I allow this to be
true of provincial synods ; but no cecumenic council can be named,
in which there was such a paucity and penury of prelates. These
two councils, therefore, are to be wholly set aside from the dispute.
Thirdly, the council of Carthage was merely provincial and
composed of a few bishops ; and therefore hath no authority suf
ficiently strong and clear for confirming the point in question.
Besides, our adversaries themselves do not receive all the decrees
of this council. For the papists vehemently and contemptuously
blame the injunction most solemnly expressed in can. 26 2 , that
" the bishop of the chief see shall not be called high priest, or chief
of the priests, or by any such title." They cannot then bind us
by an authority to which they refuse to be tied themselves.
But, they say, this Carthaginian synod was approved by the
[ J Sed millam isti habent causam paucitatem istam contemnendi, cum
rariore numero multa prseclara concilia sint habita. Alan. Cop. Dialogi vi.
Dial. v. c. 16. p. 487. Antv. 1573.]
[ 2 Ne primes sedis episcopus appelletur Summus Sacerdos, aut Princeps
sacerdotum, aut ejusmodi aliquid. Labb. Concil. T. n. p. 1176.]
JV.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 41
Trullan council of Constantinople, which was universal. Be it so.
But, if this decree of the number of the canonical books was legi
timately approved, then that also concerning the title of high priest
was confirmed by the same sanction, which yet they will by no
means concede. How, then, will they divide these things ? I ac
knowledge, indeed, that this Trullan synod 3 was ecumenical. But
the papists themselves doubt what should be determined of the
authority of the canons which are attributed to this council. Pig-
hius, in a treatise which he wrote upon this subject, calls the acts
of this council spurious, and by no means genuine ; which he seeks
to prove by some arguments. Melchior Canus too (Lib. v. cap. ult.)
declares that the canons of that council have no ecclesiastical au
thority : which is also the opinion of others. For there are some
things in those canons which the papists can by no means approve ;
namely, that the bishop of Constantinople is equalled with the
Roman, can. 36 ; that priests and deacons are not to be separated
from their wives, can. 13 ; that the law of fasting is imposed on
the Roman church, can. 55 ; and others of the same kind. There
is one rule, also, which truth itself disapproves ; that which forbids
the eating of blood and things strangled, can. 67. It is, besides,
a strong objection to the credit and authority of these canons, that
eighty-five canons of the apostles are approved and received in
them, can. 2. For pope Gelasius (in Gratian, Dist. 15. C.
Romana Ecclesia) declares the book of the apostolic canons apo
cryphal 4 . And Gratian (Dist. 16 5 ) says, that there are only fifty
[ 3 Called Quini-secct from serving as a kind of supplement to the fifth and
sixth general councils, with the latter of which it is, as here by Whitaker,
commonly confounded. It was held in 691, and its claims to the character
of an oacumenical Synod are generally denied by the Romanists; though
principally, as it would appear, because its canons are repugnant to their
system. See the article in Cave s Historia Literaria, Concil. Constant, iv.
anno 691.]
[ 4 Liber Canonum Apostolorum apocryphus : which clause is wanting in
Justellus and two other MSS. The genuineness of this decree, which has
been strongly impeached, is very learnedly defended by Mr Gibbings, in his
Roman Forgeries, p. 93, et seq. To his authorities from Isidore of Seville
(p. 94) he may add another produced by Hody, p. 653, col. 70.]
[ 5 Isidorus scribit dicens, canones qui dicuntur apostolorum, seu quia eos-
dem nee sedes apostolica recepit, nee sancti Patres illis assensum prsebue-
runt, pro eo quod ab hsereticis sub nomine apostolorum compositi dignos-
cuntur, quamvis in eis utilia inveniantur, tamen eorum gesta inter
apocrypha deputata. Dist. xvi. c. 1.]
42 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
canons of the apostles, and they apocryphal, upon the authority of
Isidore, who hath related that they were composed by heretics
under the name of the apostles. But this synod receives and con
firms eighty-five canons of the apostles ; whereas pope Zephyrinus,
who was five hundred years older than that synod, recognises, as
appears in Gratian 1 , no more than sixty. Pope Leo IX 2 ., who
was three hundred and fifty years later than the synod, receives
the same number exactly, as Gratian writes in the place just cited.
The thing itself, indeed, shews that the canons ascribed to the
apostles are spurious. For in the last canon the gospel of John is
enumerated amongst the scriptures of the new Testament ; which
all agree to have been written when all or most of the apostles
were dead. Yet they affirm that these canons were not collected by
others, but published by the assembled apostles themselves. Thus
Peiresius determines in the third part of his book concerning tra
ditions 3 ; and so others. For, can. 28, Peter himself says, "Let
him be removed from communion, as Simon Magus was by me
Peter 4 ." If this canon, therefore, be true, Peter was present at the
framing of it. But how could Peter, who was put to death in the
time of Nero, have seen the gospel of John, which was first written
and published in the time of Domitian? For the figment which
some pretend, that Peter and the rest foresaw that gospel which
John was afterward to write, is merely ridiculous. So in the last
chapter all the apostles are made to speak, and the phrase occurs
"the Acts of us the Apostles 5 ."
It is no less easy to refute the answer which others make, that
Clemens published these apostolic canons. For how could Clemens,
[i Ibid, c. 2.]
[ 2 Ibid, c. 3. The words are really Cardinal Humbert s, taken from his
Reply to Nicetas. See Canisius, Antiq. Lect. T. vi. p. 181. Gratian takes
the liberty of attributing them to Leo, on the principle, that the words of the
Legate are the words of his employer.]
[ 3 Peiresius Aiala, De Divinis, Apostolicis, atque ecclesiasticis Traditio-
nibus. Paris. 1550.]
[ 4 KK07VTa6(t TravTaTTCKTi KOI rfjs Koivwicts, cos Sijucoz/ 6 Mayo? VTT [e/zoC]
Ilerpov. It is numbered 29 by Beveridge, and 30 by Whiston. The word in
brackets is omitted by Dionysius Exiguus, for obvious reasons.]
[ 5 /cat at TTpdgeis rj/jiajv rwv aTroo-rdXcov. Beveridge here pronounces the
word rj[j.5)v to be an interpolation; but, as it seems, without any sufficient
grounds for such an opinion.]
IV.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 43
whom Damasus 6 and Onuphrius 7 testify to have died in the time
of Vespasian, have seen the gospel of John, which he wrote after
his return from Patmos, during the reign of Trajan ? For almost
all authors say very plainly, that the gospel was written by John
after his exile. So Dorotheus in the Life of John, the Prologue to
John, Simeon Metaphrastes, Isidorus in his book of the parts of the
new Testament, Gregory of Tours (Glor. Plurim. Mart. c. 30.),
Huimo (Lib. in. de rerum Christianarum Memorabil.), Alcuin upon
John, and innumerable other writers of great authority.
But the matter is clear enough of itself. For these canons of
the apostles approve the constitutions of Clement and his two
epistles. Yet the council of Constantinople, which hath received
the canons of the apostles, condemns the constitutions of Clemens 8 ,
as, indeed, many others do also ; concerning which book we shall
speak hereafter. Besides, these canons of the apostles damage the
papal cause : for they set down three books of Maccabees 9 , and
omit Tobit and Judith 10 , and direct young persons to be instructed
in the Wisdom of Sirach 11 , and make no mention of the Wisdom of
Solomon. If these are the true and genuine canons of the apostles,
then the papists are refuted in their opinion of the number of the
canonical books of the old and new Testaments by the authority of
the canons of the apostles. If they be not, as it is plain they are
not, then the synod of Constantinople erred, when it approved them
as apostolical. Yet these men deny that a general council can err
in its decrees respecting matters of faith. Let the papists see how
they will answer this. Certainly this Trullan synod approved the
canons of the council of Carthage no otherwise than it approved the
canons of the apostles. But it is manifest, and the papists themselves
will not deny, that the canons of the apostles are not to be ap
proved. Hence we may judge what force and authority is to be
[ 6 i. e. The Liber Pontificals, which goes under his name : see the article
Damasus (anno 366) in Cave s H. L. and Pearson, de success, prim. Episc.
Rom. Diss. ir. c. 4. 4 6.]
(7 Annotat. in Platinam. p. 13. Colon. lib. 1600.]
[ 8 Canon, n. Beveridge, Pandectse, Can. i. 158.]
[9 MctKKa/3cuW Tpia. C. 85. But Cosin (pp. 30 l) endeavours to shew that
the canon in its original state made no mention of any books of Maccabees.
Cf. Gibbing s Roman Forgeries, p. 114.]
[ 10 Cotelerius, however, found one MS. with the clause lov&eitf /, which,
of course, he was glad enough to have any authority for inserting.]
[ u pavdaveiv vp-wv TOVS vcovs rr^v (rcxfiiav TOV 7rc\vfj,a6ovs 2ipa^. Can. LXXXV.]
44 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
allowed to the canons of this council of Constantinople ; and what
sort of persons the papists are to deal with, who both deny that
these canons have any legitimate authority, and yet confirm the
sentence of the council of Carthage by the authority of these very
canons. For so Canus (Lib. n. cap. 9) proves that the authority
of the council of Carthage, in enumerating these books, is not to be
despised, because it was approved by the general Trullan synod ;
yet the same man elsewhere (Lib. v. cap. 6. ad argument. 6.)
makes light of the authority of these canons, and brings many
arguments to break it down.
Fourthly, Gelasius with his council of seventy bishops recites
but one book of Maccabees 1 , and one of Esdras. Thus he rejected
the second book of Maccabees, which is apocryphal, and Nehemiah,
which is truly canonical. Isidore, too 2 , confesses that there are
but two and twenty books found in the Hebrew canon : and that
their canon is the true one will be proved hereafter.
Lastly, before they can press us with the authority of councils,
they should themselves determine whether it is at all in the power
of any council to determine what book is to be received as canoni
cal. For this is doubted amongst the papists, as Canus confesses,
Lib. ii. c. 8.
Let us come now to the minor premiss of the proposed syl
logism. We allow that the council of Carthage, and Gelasius
with his seventy bishops, and Innocent, and Augustine, and Isi
dore call these books canonical. But the question is, in what
sense they called them canonical. Now, we deny that their mean
ing was to make these books, of which we now speak, of equal autho
rity with those which are canonical in the strict sense ; and the
truth of this we will prove from antiquity, from Augustine, and
from the papists themselves.
For, in the first place, if it had been decreed by any public
judgment of the whole Church, or defined in a general council,
that these books were to be referred to the true and genuine
canon of the sacred books, then those who lived in the Church
after the passing of that sentence and law would by no means have
dissented from it, or determined otherwise. But they did dissent,
and that in great numbers ; and amongst them some of those
whom the Church of Rome acknowledges as her own children.
[! In Dominica prima mensis Septembris ponunt librum Machabseorum :
where, however, Ivo reads libros. Decret, P. I. Dist. xv. c. 3.]
[ 2 Offic. i. 12.]
IV.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 45
Therefore, there was no such judgment of the Church publicly
received.
Secondly, Augustine, in that same place, plainly indicates that
he did not consider those books of equal authority with the rest.
For he distinguishes all the books into two classes ; some which
were received by all the churches, and some which were not.
Then he lays down and prescribes two rules : one, that the
books which all the churches receive should be preferred to those
which some do not receive ; the other, that those books which
are received by the greater and more noble churches should be pre
ferred to those which are taken into the canon by churches fewer
in number and of less authority. It will be best to listen to Augus
tine himself, whose words are these (Lib. 11. c. 8. de Doct.
Christ.) 3 : "Now, with respect to the canonical scriptures, let him
follow the authority of the greater number of catholic churches ;
amongst which those indeed are to be found which merited to pos
sess tne chairs of the apostles, and to receive epistles from them.
He will hold this, therefore, as a rule in dealing with the canonical
scriptures, to prefer those which are received by all catholic churches
to those which only some receive. But, with respect to those
which are not received by all, he will prefer such as the more
and more dignified churches receive, to such as are held by fewer
churches, or churches of less authority." Then follows immedi
ately, " Now the whole canon of scripture, in which we say that
this consideration hath place," &c.
Hence, then, I draw an easy and ready answer. We, with
Jerome and many other fathers, deny these books to be canonical.
Augustine, with some others, calls them canonical. Do, then, these
fathers differ so widely in opinion ? By no means. For Jerome
takes this word "canonical" in one sense, while Augustine, Innocent,
and the fathers of Carthage understand it in another. Jerome calls
only those books canonical, which the church always held for
[ 3 In canonicis autem scripturis ecclesiarum catholicarum quam pluri-
mura auctoritatem sequatur ; inter quas sane illse sint, quse apostolicas sedes
habere et epistolas accipere meruerunt. Tenebit igitur hunc modum in
scripturis canonicis, ut eas, quse ab omnibus accipiuntur ecclesiis catholicis,
preeponat eis quas quaedam non accipiunt ; in eis vero quse non accipiuntur
ab omnibus, prseponat eas quas plures gravioresque accipiunt eis quas pau-
ciores minorisque auctoritatis ecclesise tenent Totus autem canon
scripturarum, in quo istam considerationem versandam dicimus, &c. Aug.
Opp. T. in. c. 47, 48. A. B.]
46 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
canonical ; the rest he banishes from the canon, denies to be ca
nonical, and calls apocryphal. But Augustine calls those canon
ical which, although they had not the same perfect and certain
authority as the rest, were wont to be read in the church for the
edification of the people. Augustine, therefore, takes this name
in a larger sense than Jerome. But, that Augustine was not so
minded as to judge the authority of all these books to be equal, is
manifest from the circumstance that he admonishes the student of
theology to place a certain difference between the several books,
to distinguish them into classes, and to prefer some to others. If
his judgment of them all was the same, as the papists contend,
such an admonition and direction must appear entirely superflu
ous. Would Augustine, if he held all the books to have an equal
right to canonicity, have made such a distribution of the books?
Would he have preferred some to others ? Would he not have
said that they were all to be received alike ? But now, Augustine
does prefer some to others, and prescribes to all such a r\de for
judging as we have seen. Therefore Augustine did not think that
they were all of the same account, credit, and authority ; and, con
sequently, is in open opposition to the papists. All this is manifest.
It makes to the same purpose, that this same Augustine (de Civit.
Dei, Lib. xvn. c. 20.) concedes, that less reliance should be placed
upon whatever is not found in the canon of the Jews 1 . Whence it
may be collected that, when Augustine observed that some books
were not received by all, or the greatest and most noble churches,
his remark is to be understood of those books which are not con
tained in the Hebrew canon : and such are those which our churches
exclude from the sacred canon.
Let it be noted too, that in the council of Carthage, and in the
epistle of pope Innocent, five books of Solomon are enumerated ;
whereas it is certain that only three are Solomon s. So, indeed,
Augustine himself once thought that the book of Wisdom and
Ecclesiasticus were Solomon s, though he afterwards changed (but
without correcting) that opinion. For in the same place of his
City of God he thus speaks of those books : " Learned men have
no doubt that they are not Solomon s 2 ." This was one error in
Augustine. Another, and no less one, was supposing that the
book of Wisdom was written by Jesus the son of Sirach (de
[ l Sed adversus contradictores non tanta firmitate proferuntur quse
scrip ta non sunt in canone Judseorum. Aug. Opp. T. vii. 766. A.]
[ 2 Non autem esse ipsius, non dubitant doctiores. Ubi supra, 765.]
IV.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 47
Doct. Christ. Lib. n. c. 8.) ; which error he retracts, Retract. Lib.
ii. c. 4. 3 Yet he allegeth an excuse, which is neither unhandsome
nor trifling, for attributing five books to Solomon ; that " these
books may be all called Solomon s, from a certain likeness which
they bear." Hence, however, it appears that Augustine was in
a great mistake when he thought, first, that these two books were
written by Solomon, and then, that they were written by Jesus
the son of Sirach. Indeed, Augustine himself testifies that these
books were by no means received in all churches (De Civit. Dei.
Lib. xvii. c. 20.) ; where he says that these books were especially
received as authoritative 4 by the Western church. To this Wes
tern church Augustine and Innocent belonged. For the oriental
church never allowed to these books such great authority. But
the mistake of counting Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus amongst the
books of Solomon, although it is a very gross one, was yet, as
we read, entertained and received by many. For pope Mar-
cellinus, in an epistle to Solomon, adduces a testimony from Ec
clesiasticus, as from Solomon ; and likewise pope Sixtus II. in
an epistle to Gratus : which shews sufficiently that these persons
must have thought that Solomon was the author of this book. I
know, indeed, that these epistles were not really written by Mar-
cellinus or Sixtus, but are falsely attributed to them : yet still,
by whomsoever written, they indicate that this opinion was a com
mon error.
Thirdly, the papists themselves understand and interpret
Augustine and the rest in the same manner as we do. For so
many persons after Augustine and after those councils would
never have denied these books to be canonical, if they had not
perceived the reasonableness of this interpretation. If then they
blame our judgment, let them at least lend some credit to their
own companions and masters. I will bring forward no man of
light esteem, no mean or obscure doctor, but a distinguished car
dinal, that special pillar of the popish church, Cajetan, who as
suredly excelled all our Jesuits in judgment, erudition, and
[3 In secundo sane libro (de Doc. Christ.) de auctore libri, quern plures
vocant Sapientiam Salomonis, quod etiam ipsum, sicut Ecclesiasticum, Jesus
Sirach scripserit, non ita constare sicut a me dictum est postea didici, et
omnino probabilius comperi non esse hunc ejus libri auctorem. Ib. T. i.
86, 87. D. A.]
[ 4 Eos tamen in auctoritatem niaxime occidentalis antiquitus recepit ec-
clesia. Tit supra, 765.]
48 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
authority. I will recite his words, because they are express and
should always be in remembrance. Thus, therefore, writes Caje-
tan at the end of his commentary upon the History of the old
Testament : " Here," says he, " we close our commentaries on the
historical books of the old Testament. For the rest (that is,
Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St
Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the
Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from
the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar,
if thou shouldest find any where, either in the sacred councils or
the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For
the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to
the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the
epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and
any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical,
that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of
faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature
of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and
authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the
help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through
that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial
council of Carthage 1 ." Thus far Cajetan ; in whose words we
should remark two things. First, that all the statements of coun
cils and doctors are to be subjected to the correction of Jerome.
But Jerome always placed these books in the apocrypha. Secondly,
that they are called canonical by some councils and Fathers, and
customarily received in the canon of the bible, because they pro
pose a certain rule of morals. There are, therefore, two kinds
[! Hoc in loco terminamus commentaria librorum historialium veteris
Testament!. Nam reliqui (videlicet Judith, Tobise, et Machabeeorum libri) a
Divo Hieronymo extra Canonicos libros supputantur, et inter Apocrypha
locantur cum Sapientia et Ecclesiastico, ut patet in prologo Galeato. Nee
turberis iiovitie, si alicubi reperies libros istos inter canonicos supputari, vel
in sacris Conciliis vel in sacris Doctoribus. Nam ad Hieronymi limam redu-
cenda sunt tarn verba Conciliorum quam Doctorum, et juxta illius sententiam
ad Chromatium et Heliodorum episcopos libri isti (et si qui alii sunt in Ca-
none Biblise similes) non sunt canonici, id est, non sunt regulares ad firman-
dum ea quse sunt fidei : possunt tamen dici canonici, id est regulares ad edi-
ficationem fidelium, utpote in Canone Biblise ad hoc recepti et auctorati.
Cum hac distinctione discernere poteris dicta Augustini, et scripta in Pro
vincial! Concilio Carthaginensi. In ult. C. Esther, ad fin.]
IV.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 49
of canonical books : for some contain the rule both of morals
and of faith ; and these are, and are called, truly and properly
canonical : from others no rule, but only of morals, should be
sought. And these, although they are improperly called canonical,
are in truth apocryphal, because weak and unfit for the confirma
tion of faith. We may use, if we please, the same distinction
which I perceive some papists themselves to have used, as Sixtus
Senensis (Bibliothec, Lib. i.), and Stapleton (Princip. Fid. Doctrin.
Lib. ix. c. 6), who call some books Proto-canonical, and others
Deutero-canonical. The proto-canonical are those which are counted
in the legitimate and genuine canon, i. e. of the Hebrews. These
Jerome s accurate judgment hath approved ; these our churches
acknowledge as truly canonical. The Deutero-canonical are they
which, although they be sometimes called canonical in the sense
just now explained, are yet in reality apocryphal, because they do
not contain the combined rule of faith and morals 2 . The papists
are greatly incensed against their partner Cajetan, on account of
this most solid sentence ; and some even vituperate him. Canus
says, that he was deceived by the novelties of Erasmus. Let us
leave them to fight with their own men. This is certain, that
there never was a papist of more learning and authority than
Cajetan, whom the pope sent into Germany to oppose Luther. This
testimony should be a weighty one against them. Let them shake
it off as they best can : and yet they never can shake it off, since
it is confirmed by solid reason.
Thus we have seen how weak their argument is. They have none
better : for they have none other. Now, since we have answered
them, we will proceed to the confirmation of our own cause.
CHAPTER Y.
WHEREIN REASONS ARE ALLEGED AGAINST THE BOOKS OF THE
SECOND KIND.
I FORM the first argument thus : These books, concerning which
we contend, were not written by prophets : therefore they are
not canonical. The entire syllogism is this. All canonical books
of the old Testament were written by prophets : none of these
[ 2 A difference of authority is owned also by Lamy. App. Bibl. L. n. c. 5.
p. 333. Lugd. 1723 ; and Jahn, Einleitung ind. A. T. Vol. I. p. 141.]
[WHITAKER.]
50 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
books was written by any prophet : therefore none of these books
is canonical. The parts of this syllogism must be confirmed.
The major rests upon plain testimonies of scripture. Peter calls
the scripture of the old Testament, "The prophetic word," 2 Pet. i. 19,
(for it is evident from Luke iii. 4, that Xo yos means scripture,)
and " prophecy," ibid. ver. 20. Paul calls it, " the scriptures of
the prophets." Rom. xvi. 26. Zacharias the priest says, " As he
spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since
the world began." Luke i. 70. Where he means that God had
spoken in the prophetic scriptures. So Abraham says to the
luxurious man, " They have Moses and the prophets," that is, the
books of scripture. Luke xviii. 39. And elsewhere Luke says :
" Beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto
them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." Luke
xxiv. 27 ; so Rom. i. 2. Here we see that all the scriptures are
found in the books of Moses and the prophets. The apostle to
the Hebrews says : " God spake in divers manners by the pro
phets." Heb. i. 1. Therefore the prophets were all those by whom
God spake to His people. And to this refers also the assertion of
the apostle, that the Church is built " upon the foundation of the
apostlos and prophets." Eph. ii. 20. This foundation denotes the
doctrine of the scriptures, promulgated by the prophets and apos
tles. Christ says : " All things must be fulfilled which are written
in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, con
cerning me :" and then follows immediately, " Then opened he
their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures."
Luke xxiv. 44, 45. Paul asks king Agrippa, " Believest thou the
prophets?" that is, the scriptures. Acts xxvi. 27. And when
he dealt with the Jews at Rome, he tried to convince them " out
of the law of Moses and the prophets." Acts xxviii. 23.
From these testimonies we collect that the assertion in the
major is most true ; that the whole scripture of the old Testa
ment was written and promulgated by prophets. And there are
many other similar passages from which it may be concluded, that
there is no part of the old Testament which did not proceed from
some prophet. But we must remark, that the entire old canonical
scripture is sometimes signified by the name of the prophets, some
times of Moses and the prophets, sometimes of Moses, the prophets,
and the Psalms. So Augustine, in his discourse against Cresconius
the grammarian : " Not without cause was the canon of the church
framed with so salutary a vigilance, that certain books of the pro-
V.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 51
phots and apostles should belong to it 1 ." Lib. u. cap. 31. And in
another place : " Let them shew us their church, not in the rumours
of the Africans, but in the injunction of the law, in the predictions
of the prophets, in the songs of the Psalms ; that is, in all the
canonical authorities of the sacred books 2 ." De Unit. Ecclcs. c. 16.
And elsewhere : " Read this in the law, in the prophets, in the
Psalms 3 ." We have said enough in confirmation of the major; let
us now proceed to the minor.
That these books, against which we are disputing, were not
written, or set forth to the church, by prophets, is exceedingly
clear and certain. For, in the first place, all confess that Malaelii
was the last prophet of the Jews, between whom and John the
Baptist no prophet whatever intervened. But most of the authors
of these books undoubtedly lived after Malachi. This is manifest
in the case of the writers of Ecclesiasticus and the Maccabees ; and
even our adversaries themselves are not able to deny it. Besides,
those books were not written in the prophetic tongue, which was
the language of Canaan and the proper language of the church.
But if prophets, who were the teachers and masters of the Israel-
itish church, had written those books, they would have used, in
writing them, their native and prophetic language, not a language
foreign and unknown to the church ; which no right-minded person
will deny. Now that most of them were written not in Hebrew
but in Greek, the Fathers affirm, and the papists concede, and the
thing itself proves fully : concerning the rest, we shall see in the
sequel. Finally, if these books had been written by prophets, then
Christ would have used them as his witnesses. But neither Christ
nor his apostles ever made any use of their testimony. This is
what Augustine says of the books of Maccabees : " The Jews do
not esteem this scripture as the Law and the Prophets, to which the
Lord bears testimony as his witnesses 4 ." (Contra Gaudent. Epist.
[ l Neque enim sine causa tarn salubri vigilantia canon ecclesiasticus con-
stitutus est, ad quern certi prophetarum et apostolorum libri pertineant.
Aug. Opp. T. ix. 668, 669. D. A.]
[ 2 Ecclesiam suam demonstrent, si possunt, non in sermonibus et rumori-
bus Afrorum, non in conciliis episcoporum suorum, . . . sed in prsescripto
Legis, in Prophetarum prsedictis, in Psalmorum cantibus . . . hoc est, in omni
bus canonicis sanctorum librorum auctoritatibus. Ibid. 585. A.]
[ 3 Lege hoc mini de Propheta, lege de Psalmo, recita de Lege. August.
de Pastoribus, c. 14.]
[ 4 Et hanc quidem scripturam, quse appellatur Machabseorum, non habent
4 2
52 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [oil.
Lib. IT. cap. 23.) Christ bears no testimony to these books as his
witnesses. Therefore they are not sufficient or fully credible wit
nesses of Christ. But this they would be if they were prophetic.
For all the canonical and prophetic scriptures testify of Christ ;
and to them as his witnesses Christ bears distinguished testimony,
when he says, " Search the scriptures," and when he cites so many
testimonies from those books. So Jerome 1 : "We must have
recourse to the Hebrews, from whose text both the Lord speaks,
and his disciples choose their examples." But that these books
are not prophetical, we shall hereafter prove still more clearly.
The second argument. These books were not received by the
church of the Israelites ; therefore they are not canonical. The syl
logism may be framed thus : The ancient church of the Hebrews re
ceived and approved all the books of the old Testament. That church
did not receive these books ; therefore they are not canonical.
The major proposition is certain, and may be easily demon
strated. For, first, if that church had rejected a part of the Lord s
Testament, especially so large a part, she would have been
guilty of the highest crime and sacrilege, and would have been
charged with it by Christ or his apostles. For, since the Jews
were blamed for putting wrong senses upon the scripture, they
would never have escaped still greater and sterner reprehension, if
they had taken away the scripture ; forasmuch as it is much more
wicked and impious to take away books of scripture than to inter
pret them ill in certain passages. But neither Christ, nor his
apostles, nor any others, ever accused the Jews of mutilating or
tearing to pieces their canon of the sacred books. Nay, the an
cient Israelitish church both received all the canonical books, and
preserved them with the greatest care and faithfulness. On which
point read what Josephus writes, in Eusebius, Lib. in. cap. 10 2 .
This is also confirmed by the authority of scripture itself. For
the apostle says, that to the Jews were committed and delivered in
charge the oracles of God, that is, the scriptures. Rom. iii. 2.
Whence we learn, that the excellent treasure of the sacred scripture
was deposited by God with the church of the Jews, and by it
received and guarded : which diligence and fidelity of the Jews,
Judsei sicut Legem et Prophetas et Psalmos, quibus Dominus testimonium
perhibet ut testibus suis (Lib. i. . 38.) Aug. Opp. T. ix. 1006. c.]
[! Ad Hebrseos revertendum, unde et Dominus loquitur, et discipuli ex-
empla prsesumunt. Prooem. in Paralip.J
[ 2 Contra Apion. L. I. c. 8. Vide infra.]
V.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 53
in preserving the sacred books, Augustine (Ep. 3, and 59.) and all
the other Fathers celebrate. Besides, if so many canonical books
had been (not only not received, but) rejected by the ancient
church of the Jews, it would follow that many canonical books were
never received by any church : for before Christ there was no
other church but that of the Jews. If then we grant that that
church, which was the whole and sole church at that particular
time, could have rejected canonical books, then it is evident that
the church may err, which the papists will not be willing to allow.
Yet is it not a great error, not only not to acknowledge and receive
sacred books, but to repudiate and eject them from the canon of
the inspired writings ? But the whole Jewish church rejected these
books : which was our assumption in the minor, and may be con
firmed by the confession of all the fathers, and even of the papists
themselves. For every one understands that these books were
never received into the Hebrew canon.
As to Bellarmine s pretence (Lib. i. cap. 10), that these books
have the testimony of the apostolic church, and that the apostles
declared these books canonical, whence does its truth appear ? The
apostles never cite testimonies from these books, nor can anything
be adduced to shew that any authority was attributed to them
by the apostles. Indeed when Cajetan affirmed, in his commen
tary on 1 Cor. xii., that only to be sacred and divine scripture
which the apostles either wrote or approved, he was blamed by
Catharinus (Annot. Lib. i.) on that account ; and Catharinus lays
it down in that place, that the church receives certain books as
canonical which certainly were neither written nor approved by the
apostles. The allegation of Canus, that these books were neither
received nor rejected 3 , is merely ridiculous. For, surely, if the
Jews did not receive these books, what else was this but rejecting
them utterly ? He who does not receive God rejects him : so
not to receive the word of God, is to refuse and reject it. " He
that is not with me is against me ; and he that gathereth not with
me scattereth." Luke xi. 23. Besides, how could that church
either receive or rather not reject books written in a foreign tongue ?
The sum of both arguments is this : These books are not
written by prophets, nor received by the Israelitish church. There
fore they are not canonical.
The third argument. Certain things may be found in these
[ 3 Negamus hos libros a synagoga esse rejectos. Aliud est enim non reci-
pere, aliud vero rejicere. Melch. Cani Loc. Theol. Lib. n. cap. xi. p. 45 a.
Colon. Agrip. 1585.]
54 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
books which prove them not to be canonical. This argument is
very strong, as derived from the nature and genius of the books
themselves : and the conclusion will appear with fuller evidence in
the sequel of this discourse, when we come to the particular ex
amination of the several books ; whence it will be sufficiently mani
fest that none of those now called in question have any just claims
to be considered as canonical.
CHAPTER VI.
WHEREIN THE TRUTH OF OUR CAUSE IS ILLUSTRATED BY OTHER
TESTIMONIES.
LASTLY, it is clear from the testimonies of councils, fathers and
writers, that these .books deserve no place in the true canon of
scripture. Which argument, though it be merely human, yet may
have force against them who themselves use no other in this cause.
The synod of Laodicea (c. 59 l ) forbids the reading of any
non-canonical books in the church, and allows only " the canonical
books of the old and new Testament" to be used for that purpose.
Then those are enumerated as canonical, which our churches re
ceive ; not Tobit, nor Judith, nor the rest. There is, indeed, a
clear error in this council. For Baruch is coupled with Jeremiah,
(which former perhaps they thought to be a part of the latter,) and
the epistles of the prophet Jeremiah are mentioned 2 , whereas there
is but one epistle of Jeremiah in the book of Baruch: unless,
perhaps, there may here be a fault in the Greek book, since
these words are omitted in the Latin. There is another error
with respect to the Apocalypse, which these fathers have not
placed in the catalogue of the books of the new Testament. And
it is certain that many in the church doubted for a long time con
cerning that book 3 . However, in the judgment of those fathers,
[1 OTI ov Se7 i$ia)TiKovs tyaX/Jiovs \eyecrdat Iv rfj KK\r)(riq., ovde aKavovtcrra
/SrSXict, aXXa p.6va TO. KavoviKa rfjs Kaivrjs KOI rraXcuas diadijiajs. Mansi, T. II.
p. 574.]
[ 2 lepe/Lita?, Bapoir^, dprjvoi KOI eVi&lt;rroXcu. Can. 60. ibid.]
[ 3 It is to be observed that Canon 60 professes only to give a list of those
books oo-a Set dvayivwo-Kfo-QciL i. e. in the Church. Hence Cosin (Hist, of the
Canon, p. 60.) supposes the Apocalypse to be left out, not as uncanonical,
but us unfit for popular instruction on account of its mysterious obscurity ;
for which reason, he observes, it is omitted likewise in the Calendar of Lessons
read in the Church of England, though received in our Canon.]
YI.J QUESTION THE FIRST. 55
these books of the old Testament, Tobit, Judith, Ecclesiasticus,
Wisdom, and the two books of Maccabees, are not canonical. We
form the same judgment of those books. The papists object, that
the canon of scripture was not then settled ; consequently, that
they might leave these books out of the canon of scripture, but ive
cannot claim a similar right after this canon of scripture hath been
defined by the church. But this is too ridiculous. For who can,
without great impudence, maintain that there was no certain canon
even of the old Testament for four hundred years after Christ;
until, forsooth, the time of the council of Carthage ? Was the
church so long ignorant what books pertained unto the canon of
scripture ? A pretence at once false and impious ! On the con
trary, the fathers who lived before that council testify that they
very well knew and understood what books were divine and canom%
cal, as shall presently appear. Besides, that council of Carthage
could not determine anything about the canon of scripture, so as
to bind the whole church, since it was only a provincial one.
But (it will be said) the universal Trullan synod determined
that these books should be received into the canon, and denned
this matter by its authority. If we ask, how we are to under
stand that this is so ? they answer, from its approving the acts of
the council of Carthage. But that is not enough to make this a
clear case. For (besides that we have already sufficiently obviated
the force of this argument), in the first place, the Trullan synod
does, in the very same place and canon, approve also the acts of
the council of Laodicea. If that canon, therefore, of the Trullan
synod be genuine, the Laodicene and Carthaginian decrees con
cerning the canonical books do not contradict each other. Conse
quently, although these books be called in a certain sense canonical
by the council of Carthage, yet they are in strictness uncano-
nical, as they are pronounced to be by the council of Laodicea.
But if the judgments of these councils be contradictory, the Trul
lan synod failed in prudence when it approved the acts of both.
Secondly, the Trullan synod was held six hundred years after
Christ. Now, was the canon of scripture unknown, or uncertain,
or unapproved for so many ages ? Who in his right senses would
choose to affirm this ?
Thirdly, the later church did not judge that the canon of
scripture was in this way determined and denned by these councils ;
which may easily be understood from the testimonies of those
writers who flourished in the church after those councils, as you
shall hear presently. First of all, therefore, I will adduce the
56 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
testimonies of the ancient fathers, then of the later, from which
the constant judgment of the church concerning these books may
be recognised. And although it may be somewhat tedious to go
through them all, yet this so great multitude of witnesses must needs
possess the greater authority in proportion to their numbers.
Melito of Sardis, as Eusebius tells us, (Lib. iv. cap. 26) testifies
that he went into the East l , and learned with exact accuracy all the
books of the old Testament. He, therefore, considered the matter
by no means doubtful ; which would have been impossible without
a fully ascertained knowledge of the canon. Now this Melito, who
took so much pains in determining these books, recites precisely
the same "books of the old Testament as we do, with the single ex
ception of the book of Wisdom. There are some, indeed, who think
that this Wisdom of Solomon, which Melito mentions, is the book
of Proverbs itself: but I do not agree with them 2 , for no cause can
be given why the same book should be twice named. But though
he might have mistaken in one book, he could not have mistaken
in all, especially when using such diligence as he professes himself
to have used. The error arose from the circumstance, that this
book w r as in the hands of many, and was more read and had in
greater esteem than the rest. Indeed, I acknowledge that of all
Apocryphal books most respect was always exhibited towards this
one : -and this is the reason why Augustine seems to defend its
authority 3 (Lib. de Pra3d. Sanct. c. 14); from which defence it is
evident that this book was publicly read in the church, and that
the church thought very honourably of its character.
[! dv\6cov ovv ds rr)V dvaro\r)V . . . KOI aKpi/Scoy paOaiv ra TTJS TraXaias &ia-
6r]K-r]s /3t/3Xia, K. r. A. p. 403. T. i. ed. Heinichen. Lips. 1827.]
[ 2 The clause in question is Hapoipiai -q KOI 2o$m, or, according to Stephens,
77 2o(ta ; and the question, whether we should not rather read r\ or rj. fj is
the reading of six MSS. confirmed by Nicephorus and Rufinus (who trans
lates quce et Sapientia), and adopted by Valesius. Stroth and Heinichen agree
with Whitaker in preferring 77, in which I think them undoubtedly wrong,
because when the title of a book is given in an index or catalogue, the article
is hardly ever prefixed, and in this catalogue in particular never. In reply
to Whitaker s objection, I suppose it is sufficient to say that the Book of
Proverbs is twice named, because it had two names. " Certe," says Valesius,
"veteres poene omnes proverbia Salomonis Sapientiam vocabant, intcrdum
et Sapientiam panareton." Of. Euseb. H. E. iv. 22.]
[ 3 Quse cum ita sint, non debuit repudiari sententia libri Sapientiec, qui
meruit in ecclesia Christ! de gradu lectorum ecclesise Christi tarn longa an-
nositate recitari ; et ab omnibus Christianis, ab episcopis usque ad extremes
laicos fideles, poenitentes, catechumenos, cum veneratione divinee auctoritatis
audiri. Aug. Opp. T. x. 1370. c.]
VI.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 57
Origen (in Eusebius, Lib. vi. c. 25) enumerates the same books
as are acknowledged by our churches to be canonical, and says,
that the testamentary books of the old Testament are two and
twenty, according to the number of the Hebrew alphabet 4 . And
many others after him have made the same remark. Now, if the
canonical books agree in number with the Hebrew letters, as these
fathers determine, then it is certain that no place is left in the
sacred canon for those books concerning which we now dispute ;
otherwise there would be more canonical books than Hebrew letters.
But those books which we concede to be truly canonical correspond
by a fixed proportion and number to the elements of the Hebrew
alphabet.
Athanasius says, in his Synopsis : " Our whole scripture is
divinely inspired, and hath books not infinite in number, but finite,
and comprehended in a certain canon." There was, therefore, at
that time a fixed canon of scripture. He subjoins: "Now these arc
the books of the old Testament." Then he enumerates ours, and
no others, and concludes : " The canonical books of the old testa
ment are two and twenty, equal in number to the Hebrew letters."
But, in the meanwhile, what did he determine concerning the rest ?
Why, he plainly affirms them to be uncanonical. For thus he
proceeds : " But, besides these, there are. also other non-canonical
books of the old Testament, which are only read to the catechu
mens." Then he names the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of
Sirach, the fragments of Esther, Judith, Tobit. " These," says he,
"are the non-canonical books of the old Testament 5 ." For Athana
sius makes no account of the books of Maccabees. He does not
mention Esther in the catalogue, but afterwards remarks, that this
book belongs to another volume ; perhaps to Ezra, by whom
Isidore and others say that book was written. And some fathers,
when enumerating the books of scripture, do not mention this by
name, either because they thought it part of some other book, or
esteemed it apocryphal on account of those apocryphal additions of
certain chapters.
[ 4 OVK ayvoTjreov civat ras evdiadrjKovs /3t/3Xov, cos 1 c E/3paioi
dvo KOI e iKocri, ocroy 6 dpidp-bs T(OV Trap avrols (Troi^ei(ov eoriV.J
[ 5 Trao-a ypcxprj T)/ZCOJ/ Xptortoi/cov QeoTTvevcrTos eVrii/, OVK ao/nora de, aXXa
GoptoyAeVa KOI KeKavovicr/Jieva e^et ra /3t/3Xia. Kcu earn rrjs /LteV rraXaias
Tavra ...... CKTOS 8e TovToov 6icri TraXiv ercpa /3i/3Xia rfjs avTTJs 7ra\aias
, ov Kavovi^o/jLeva fj,ev, avayivaxTKo^fva ds p.6vov rots Kar^xovjjievots ....
KCU TO. /z?) Kavovi^6[j.eva. Athanas. Opp. ii. 126, sqq. ed. Bened. The
Synopsis is the work of an uncertain author, falsely ascribed to Athanasius.]
58 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
Hilary, bishop of Poitiers, speaks thus in the Prologue to his
Exposition of the Psalms : " The law of the old Testament is con
sidered as divided into twenty-two books, so as to correspond with
the number of the letters 1 ." By the term "the Law" he denotes
the whole scripture of the old Testament.
JSTazianzen, in his verses on the genuine books of sacred scrip
ture, fixes the same number of the books of the old Testament.
These are the lines of Nazianzen, in which he declares that he
counts twenty-two books in the canon, that is, so many in number
as the Hebrew letters :
Apxaiovs ptv tfyta Svo KOL aKocrt /3i/3Xov,
Tens re5z&gt; c E/3pcuW ypa^ifj-acnv avrtOfrovs 2 .
He omits mentioning Esther ; the reason of which we have before
explained.
Cyril of Jerusalem, in his fourth catechetical discourse, hath
written many prudent and pious directions upon this matter. " Do
thou," says he, " learn carefully from the church what are the
books of the old Testament. Head the divine scriptures, the two
and twenty books 3 ." Thus he shews that there were no more than
twenty-two divine books. Then he enumerates the same books as
are received by us for canonical, save that he includes in that
number the book of Baruch, because he took it (though wrongly,
as we shall prove anon) for a part of the book of Jeremiah. Now
if any shall affirm that nevertheless there are other canonical books
besides these, Cyril will refute him with this splendid objurgation :
Oo\V GOV (bpOVl[JL(t)TpOl 1]GOLV Ol CLTTOCTToXoi KCLl OL CtjOVCUOl 7Ti-
(TKOTTOI, 01 T^S KK\rjcria? TrpocrTCLTai, o\ Tcifras TrapacovTcs. As
if he had said, " Who art thou, that thou shouldest make these
books canonical ? The apostles, the ancient bishops, the governors
of the church, were much wiser than thou art, who have com
mended these books alone to us as canonical, and no others."
What now becomes of those who say, that these books were ap
proved by the apostles and the apostolic churches ?
Epiphanius (Hser. vui. contra Epicura3os 4 ) counts twenty-seven
[! Lex veteris Testament! in viginti duos libros deputatur, ut cum litera-
rum numero convenient. He adds, however: Quibusdam autem visum
est, additis Tobia et Judith, viginti quatuor libros secundum numerum Grse-
carum literarum connumerare.]
[ 2 Carm. xxxm. L. 28. p. 98. T. n. Opp. Nazianz. Colon. 1690.]
[ 3 QiXopadcos eTriyvcodi irapa rrjs KK\r)o-ias Troiai pev flcrLv al rfjs TraXaias dia-
/3i/3Xot .... avayiva&lt;TK ras dfias ypcxfras, ray ei /crxri Suo fti(3Xovs rfjs TraXaiay
. Cyril. Hierosol. Catech. iv. 33. p. 67. ed. Tuttei.J
Opp. i. p. 19. ed. Petavii.j
VI.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 59
books of the old Testament, which he says were delivered by God
to the Jews ; or rather, as he subjoins, twenty-two : to? TOL irap
avrdis (TTOiy^iia TWV EfipaiKWv ypa^^anov dpiO/mov/uevai. For
so he determines that the genuine books of the old Testament are
equal in number to the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. But some
books (as Epiphanius says) are doubled. Hence arises that variety
in the sum ; being counted when doubled, twenty-two, and, taking
each book severally, twenty-seven. Then he adds, "There are
also two other books which are doubtful, the Wisdom of Sirach
and that of Solomon, besides some others which are apocryphal 5 ."
He calls some dubious, some merely apocryphal. The same author
writes, in his book of Weights and Measures 6 , that the Jews sent
to king Ptolemy twenty-two books transcribed in golden letters,
which he enumerates in a previous passage ; although Josephus, in
the beginning of his Antiquities, relates that only the five books
of Moses were sent 7 . In this place he writes thus of those two
books, the Wisdom of Solomon and of Sirach, which he had in the
former citation called dubious : " They are indeed useful books,
but are not included in the canon, and were not deposited in the
ark of the covenant 8 ." Which is as much as to say plainly, that
they are not to be counted canonical.
Ruffinus, in his Exposition of the Apostles 1 Creed, says, that
he intends to designate the volumes of the old and new Testaments,
which are believed to have been inspired by the Holy Ghost him
self ; and then he enumerates our books in both Testaments, sub
joining : " But it should be known that there are other books
also, which were called by the ancients not canonical but ecclesiasti
cal, the Wisdom of Solomon and of Sirach, the book of Tobit, Judith,
Maccabees. These," says he, " they would have to be read in
churches, but that nothing should be advanced from them for con
firming the authority of faith 9 ." The papist Pamelius praises this
[ 5 flcr\ de KOI oXXctt dvo /3i/3Xot Trap avrois Iv djj.(pi\KT(o, 77 crofpia rov
/ecu 77 rov SoXo/LKyi/ro?, X M P^ LS aXXcoz/ rivatv /3t/3XtW evmroKpvcpwv. Ib. C.J
[ 6 Opp. ii. p. 100. Do Pond, et Mens. cc. 22, 23.]
(7 avra /Mora ra rov VOJJLOV Trapedoo-av ol irepcpdevres eVt rrjv f^rjyr^crLV ts
Prooem. . 3, p. 3. ed. Havercamp.]
P* v flo~i KOI w(f]\ifjLOL, dXX fls dpidfj,bv prjT&v OVK dvcXpepovTai,
810 8e fv r&lt;3 Aapcoz/ avfrc0T)(rav, ovre ev rfj rrjs diaQiJKrjs /a/3a&gt;ra). Ib, p. 162.
The passage is corrupt, and should probably be read dib ovde iv TJJ rrjs
diadrjKrjs Kt/3cor&lt;5 ro&gt; Apo&gt;i/ []^J^] avfTeOrjcravJ}
[ 9 Sciendum tamen est, quod et alii libri sunt, qui non canonici, sed eccle-
siastici a majoribua appellati sunt : ut est Sapientia Salomonis, et alia Sa-
60 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [ciI.
book, but blames this single passage in it; which yet did not deserve
reprehension, since it is both true and accordant with innumerable
judgments of the ancient fathers. He would not even have praised
it, if he had not seen it praised by many, who yet are far from
blaming that in it which he disapproves. That exposition was
really made by Ruffinus, though it was attributed to Cyprian.
I come now to Jerome, who most plainly of all rejects these
books from the canon, and argues strenuously against their canoni
cal authority, and shews himself a most vehement adversary of
these books. It would be tedious to review all his testimonies.
In the Prologus Galeatus to Paulinus, " As," says he, " there are
two and twenty letters, so there are counted two and twenty
books." Then he adds : " This Prologue to the scriptures may
serve as a sort of helmed head-piece for all the books which we
have translated from the Hebrew into Latin, to let us know that
whatever is out of these is to be placed amongst the Apocrypha.
Therefore the Wisdom of Solomon, and Jesus, and Judith, and
Tobit, are not in the canon 1 ." Testimonies of the same sort occur
everywhere in his books.
Gregory the Great, in his Commentaries on Job (Lib. xix.
cap. 16), expressly writes that the books of Maccabees are not
canonical 2 ; and there is no doubt that he thought the same of
the other books also.
To these authorities of the ancient fathers, I will subjoin the
testimony of Josephus, which exactly agrees with them, as it lies
in his first book against Apion the grammarian, and is transcribed
by Eusebius in the tenth chapter of the third book of his Eccle-
pientia, quse dicitur Filii Sirach . . . Ejusdem ordinis est libellus Tobise et
Judith et Maccabseorum libri. . . . Quse omnia legi quidem in ecclesiis volue-
runt, non tamen proferri ad auctoritatem ex his fidei confirmandam. Ex-
posit, in Symb. Apost. in Append, ad Cyprian, ed. Fell. p. 26.]
[! Quomodo igitur xxu elementa sunt . . . ita xxn volumina supputantur.
. . . Hie prologus scripturarum quasi galeatum principium omnibus libris,
quos de Hebrseo vertimus in Latinum, convenire potest, ut scire valeamus,
quicquid extra hos est inter Apocrypha esse ponendum. Igitur Sapientia
quse vulgo Salomonis inscribitur, et Jesu filii Sirach liber, et Judith et
Tobias et Pastor non sunt in canone. The prologues of Jerome, being to be
found in every common copy of the Vulgate and in a thousand other shapes,
are not generally referred to by the page in these notes.]
[ 2 De qua re non inordinate agimus, si ex libris, licet non canonicis, tameri
ad sedificationem ecclesiee editis, testmionium proferamus. p. 622. A. u.
Paris. 1705.]
VI.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 61
siastieal History : " We have not innumerable books, inconsistent
and conflicting with each other ; but two and twenty books alone,
containing the series of our whole history, and justly deemed
worthy of the highest credit. Of these, five are by Moses ; em
bracing the laws, and delivering down a narrative from the origin
of the human race until his own death; which is a period of nearly
three thousand years. From the death of Moses to the reign of
Artaxerxes, who succeeded Xerxes as king of Persia, the prophets
after Moses have written accounts of the events of their own
times in thirteen books. The remaining four contain hymns to
God and moral admonitions to man. It is true, that from the time
of Artaxerxes to our own particular accounts have been written of
the various events in our history : but these latter have not been
deemed worthy of the same credit, because the succession of the
prophets has not been regularly and exactly maintained in that
interval 3 ."
Assuredly it is plain enough from this testimony of Josephus,
what was the judgment of the Israelitish church concerning these
books ; and the testimonies which have been alleged from so many
fathers, distinguished both by antiquity and sanctity, evince with
the highest certainty that the opinion of the Christian church also
could not have been different.
Hitherto, therefore, we have proved by the clearest testimonies
of the fathers that these books, about which we contend, are not
canonical, but apocryphal; for so they are expressly called. There
fore these fathers plainly agree with us, and confirm our sentiments
by their suffrages.
But perhaps the papists may have an answer to allege suffi-
[3 ov yap p,vpid8es /3t/3Auoi&gt; etcrt Trap r}[uv, d(rv[j,(pcdi&gt;a)V KOL fjia^op.cvcov dvo
Se p.6va TTpbs rols tiKOfri, /3i/3Xta, TOV Travrbs e^oi/ra XP OI&gt;OV rr)i&gt; dvaypafprjv, TO,
diKaioas 0eTa TreTTioref/zei/a. Kai rourooy TTCVTC p,ev ecrrt ra Moovcrecos , a TOVS re
v6fj,ovs TTfpie^et, KOL TTJV rfjs avOpwTroyovias Trapddoariv p-^XP 1 T ^ s O.VTOV T\vrfjs.
OVTOS 6 xpovos aTToXetTret rpi(rxtXiW okiyov eYtoi/. ATTO de rrjs Mowo-fws reAeu-
rrjs ^XP L T V S Apraepou rov /xera Seprjv Hepcrcdv /3a&lt;nXeW "PX 7 / 9 * A 167 "^
^Laivarjv 7rpo(^)^rai ra K.CLT avrovs TrpaxOtvTa (rvveypa^av Iv rpial KOI 8eKa /3i-
/BAi ois 1 . At Se XoiTrai reVcrape? V/JLVOVS (Is TOV Qebv Kai rots dvdpa&gt;7rois inro6iJKas
TOV /3tou irepifxovo-iv. ATTO de Apra^ep^ov ^XP L T v Ka @ f]p- a s xp v v yeyparrrai
[J.6V Ka&lt;rra- TTIO-TCCOS Se oi&gt;x 6/uotas ?;|i eorai rot s Trpo avr&v dia TO JJ.T] yeveo-Qai rrjv
TUV TTpCXpTjTWV UKpL^fj StaSox^. A^Xo^ 5 fO-rlv %py(p 7To5ff 77jLt?ff rotff iSlOl?
ypdp-fMaa-t TreTTicrrcuKa/zez/ TCHTOVTOV yap alavo? rjSrj Trapcox^Koro?, ovrf TtpocrBeival
TIS ovdev, ovTf cicpeXetf aurajf, oi/re /zera^etwi TeTo\p.rjKV. K. r. X. Contra
Apion. L. i. c. 8.J
62 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
cient to shew that these testimonies avail us nothing. Indeed I will
not dissemble their answer, nor conceal any thing from you that 1
know. Well then, in order to break the force of these testimonies
and overturn our argument, some of them bring two objections :
the first, that these fathers spoke of the Jewish, not of the Christian
canon : the second, that the canon was not yet fixed ; wherefore
those fathers are not to be blamed for determining otherwise con
cerning the canon than the church afterwards defined, while we,
nevertheless, are precluded from a similar liberty. Let us briefly
obviate both objections.
First of all, these fathers whom I have cited do speak of the
canon of Christians, as any one who looks at their words themselves
will readily perceive. The synod of Laodicea prescribes what
books should be read as canonical in the churches. Melito declares
that he had taken pains to find out what books should be received ;
and this he did surely not for the sake of the Jews, but for his
own. Athanasius says that those books which he calls uncanonical
were wont to be read only to the catechumens. Now the catechu
mens were Christian catechumens. Cyril forbids the reading of
those books which he calls apocryphal, and says that the apostles
and old bishops and masters of the church had taken no other
books into the canon than those which are received by us. Who
does not see that he is speaking of the Christian canon ? Although
perhaps Cyril was too vehement in forbidding these books to be
even read : for the other fathers, although they determine them
to be apocryphal, yet permit their perusal. Ruffinus says, that
those only which our churches also receive were received into the
canon by the ancients (who doubtless were Christians), but that the
rest were called by those same ancients, not canonical, but eccle
siastical. So Jerome, writing to Paulinus a Christian bishop,
makes none others canonical than we do, and briefly describes the
contents of these books, and of no others. Therefore he acknow
ledged no other canon of the sacred books than we do now. In
his preface to the books of Chronicles he writes in these plain
words : " The church knows nothing of apocryphal writings ; we
must therefore have recourse to the Hebrews, from whose text the
Lord speaks, and his disciples choose their examples 1 ." " What is
not extant with them is to be flung away from us 2 ," says Jerome,
[* Apocrypha nescit ecclesia: ad Hebrseos igitur reyertendum, unde et
Dominus loquitur et discipuli exempla prsesumunt.J
[ 2 Quse non habentur apud illos, procul abjicienda sunt.j
VI.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 63
in his preface to Ezra and Nehemiah. And elsewhere, in his pre
face to the books of Solomon, he hath these words : " As therefore
the church, while it reads Judith and Tobit and the books of Mac
cabees, yet receives them not amongst the canonical scriptures ; so
she may read these two volumes also [the Wisdom of Solomon and
Sirach] for the edification of the people, not for confirming the
authority of articles of faith 3 ." Plainly Jerome speaks of the
Christian church, and determines that the canon of the old Testa
ment is no other with Christians than it was with the Hebrews.
They are absurd, therefore, who imagine a double canon. Again,
in his first book against the Pelagians, he blames a heretic for
citing testimonies from the Apocrypha, when proposing to prove
something about the kingdom of heaven.
In the next place, whereas they say that the canon of scrip
ture was not then fixed, it is but fair that they should speak out,
and teach us when afterwards it was fixed. If it be said, in the
council of Florence or of Trent, these are but modern ; and, I am
very sure, they will not affirm that it was fixed so late. If in the
council of Carthage, that council of Carthage was not general. If
in the Trullan, those canons are censurable in many respects, even
in the opinion of the papists themselves, as we have shewn clearly
above. Will they concede then, either that there was no definite
canon of scripture for six hundred years after Christ, or that these
books were not received into the canon for so many ages ? This in
deed would be sufficient to overturn the authority of the books. Let
them answer, therefore, and mark the precise time, that we may
understand when the canon of scripture was at length defined and
described. If they can name any general council in which is extant
the public judgment of the church concerning the canonical books,
let them produce it. Except this Trullan council, they have ab
solutely none at all. And this Trullan does not precisely affirm
these books to be canonical, but only confirms the council of Car
thage ; which is of no consequence, since it also confirms the council
of Laodicea, and the papists themselves deny all credit to the
Trullan canons. Thus they are left without defence on any side.
However, that you may the better see how empty that is which
they are wont to urge about the Trullan synod; I will now
shew, by the most illustrious and certain testimonies of those men
[ 3 Sicut ergo Judith et Tobise et Maehahseorum libros legit quidem ec-
clesia, sed eos inter caiionicas scripturas non recipit ; sic et hsec duo volu-
mina legat ad sedificationem plebis, non ad auctoritatem ecclesiasticorum
dogmatum confirmandam.J
64 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
who have governed and taught the church of Christ in more
recent times, that since that council these books were nevertheless
not held to be canonical in the church.
Isidore, who lived almost in those very times, says (in Lib. de
Offic.) that the old Testament was settled by Ezra in two and
twenty books, " that the books in the law might correspond in
number with the letters 1 . 1 John Damascene (Lib. iv. c. 18.) says :
" It must be known that there are two and twenty books of the
old Testament, according to the alphabet of the Hebrew language 2 ."
Thus Damascene agrees with those ancient doctors concerning the
number of the canonical books of the old Testament. The Wisdom
of Solomon and Sirach he praises indeed, but puts them out of the
canon : the rest he does not even mention. Yet he lived, as
every one knows, after the Trullan Synod. So Nicephorus (apud
Cyrum Prodromum in versibus) :
rrjs fJ.v TraXaias eltriv cucocrt $vo.
11 There are two and twenty books of the old Testament." Like
wise Leontius determines, in his book of Sects (Act. 2), that there
are no more canonical books of the old Testament than the twenty-
two which our churches receive. Thus he speaks : " Of the old
Testament there are twenty-two books." Then he goes through
all the books of the old and new Testaments in order, and finally
subjoins, " These are the books, old and new, which are esteemed
canonical in the church 3 ." JRabanus Maurus (De Inst. Cler. c. 54)
says, that the whole old Testament was distributed by Ezra into
two and twenty books, " that there might be as many books in the
law as there are letters 4 ." Radulphus (Lib. xiv. in Lev. c. 1.) :
" Tobit, Judith, and the Maccabees, although they be read for
instruction in the church, yet have they not authority 5 ." Therefore
they are not canonical. Hugo S. Victoris (Prolog. Lib. i. de Sa-
cram. c. 7) says, that " these books are read indeed, but not written
in the body of the text or in the authoritative canon ; that is, such
as the book of Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, the Wisdom of Solomon,
[! Ut tot libri essent in lege, quot et literee habentur. Isid. de Eccl. Offic.
Lib. i. c. 12.]
[ 2 lo-reov (os iiKO(ri KOI Suo /3i/3Xoi fieri rfjs 7ra\aias diaOijKrjs Kara ra (TTOixe ia
TTJS EfipctiSos cjxdvfjs.]
[ 3 ravra &lt;TTI ra KavovL^o^eva /3t/3Xta eV rfj e/c/cX^o-ta, KOI TraXaia KOL ve a.]
[ 4 Ut tot libri essent in lege, quot habentur et literse. Rab. Maur. de
Instit. Cleric. Lib. n. c. 54.]
[ 5 Tobias, Judith et Machabseorum, quamyis ad instructionem ecclesise
legantur, tamen non habent auctoritatem.]
VI.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 65
and Eeclesiasticus." Again, (Didascal. Lib. iv. c. 8) " As there
are twenty-two alphabetic letters, by means of which we write in
Hebrew, and speak what we have to say, and the compass of the
human voice is included in their elementary sounds ; so twenty- two
books are reckoned, by means of which, being as it were the
alphabet and elements in the doctrine of God, the yet tender infancy
of our man is instructed, while it still hath need of milk 6 ." Twenty-
two letters form the language, and twenty-two books the faith.
The same is the opinion of Richardus de S. Victore, (Exception.
Lib. ii. c. 9). For, after telling us that there are twenty-two
canonical books of the old Testament, he presently subjoins :
" There are besides other books, as the Wisdom of Solomon, the
book of Jesus the son of Sirach, and the book of Judith and Tobit,
and the book of Maccabees, which are read indeed, but not written
in the canon 7 ." In which words he plainly denies them to be
canonical. And presently after, in the same place : " In the old
Testament there are certain books which are not written in the
canon, and yet are read, as the Wisdom of Solomon, &c." So
Lyra, (Prolog, in libros Apocryph.) ; Dionysius Carthusianus, (Com
ment, in Gen. in princip.) ; Abulensis, (in Matt. c. 1) ; Antoninus,
(3 p. Tit. xvni. c. 5). Cardinal Hugo, in his Prologue to Joshua,
calls Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, the Wisdom of Solomon, and Eecle
siasticus, apocryphal ; and says that the church does not receive
them for proof of the faith, but for instruction in life. These are
his lines ; in metre, poor enough ; in sense, excellent.
Restant apocryphi, Jesus, Sapientia, Pastor,
Et Machabaeorum libri, Judith atque Tobias :
Hi, quod sunt dubii, sub canone non numerantur ;
Sed quia vera canunt, ecclesia suscipit illos.
Bat, in what sense the church always received them, the same
author explains elsewhere (in Prol. Hieron. in Lib. Regum) 8 : " Such
the church receives not for proof of the faith, but for instruction
[ 6 Quomodo ergo viginti duo elementa sunt, per quse Hebraice scribimus,
omneque loquimur, et eorum initiis vox humana comprehenditur ; ita vigiriti
duo volumina supputantur, quibus quasi literis et exordiis in Dei doctrina
tenera adhuc et lactens viri nostri eruditur infantia.]
[ 7 Sunt prseterea alii libri, ut Sapientia Salomonis, liber Jesu Filii Sirach,
et Liber Judith, et Tobias, et liber Machabseorum, qui leguntur quidem, sed
non scribuntur in Canone. Opp. p. 320. Rothomag. 1650.]
[ 8 Tales recipit ecclesia, non ad probationem fidei, sed ad morum in-
structionem. Opp. Venet. 1703. T. I. p. 218. 2.]
[WHITAKER.]
66 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
in morals." Which other fathers also had said before him. The
Gloss upon Gratian s decree (Dist. 16) affirms that the Bible has
some apocryphal books in it. Erasmus in many places maintains
the same opinion, and Cardinal Cajetan most expressly. Now all
these flourished after the Trullan synod, and some of them after
the Florentine ; and the church of Rome acknowledges them all as
her sons and disciples ; except perhaps Erasmus, whom she hath
expelled, as he deserves, from her family : although Leo the
Tenth called even him, in a certain epistle, his most dearly beloved
son 1 . Antonio Bruccioli, an Italian, translated the old Testament
into the Italian language 2 , and wrote commentaries upon the cano
nical books, but omitted the apocryphal. Even since the council
of Trent, Arias Montanus, who was himself present in that synod,
and published that vast biblical work, and is called by Gregory
XIII. his son, in an edition of the Hebrew Bible with an inter
linear version declares that the orthodox church follows the canon of
the Hebrews, and reckons apocryphal the books of the old Testa
ment which were written in Greek.
Thus, therefore, I conclude : If these books either were canoni
cal, or so declared and defined by any public and legitimate judgment
of the church ; then these so numerous fathers, ancient and modern,
could not have been ignorant of it, or would not have dissented,
especially since they were such as desired both to be, and to be
esteemed, catholics. But these fathers, so numerous, so learned, so
obedient to the godly precepts of the church, were not aware that the
church had decreed any such thing concerning the canon of scrip
ture, and openly pronounced these books to be apocryphal. There
fore these books are not canonical, and were never inserted in the
sacred canon of scripture by any legitimate authority or sanction
of the church. Whence it follows that our church, along with all
other reformed churches, justly rejects these books from the canon ;
and that the papists falsely assert them to be canonical. If they
demand testimonies, we have produced them. If they ask for a
multitude, they ought to be content with these which are so many,
and may well satisfy their desires with them.
[ l See Leo s Epistle "Dilecto Filio Erasmo Roterod." prefixed to Eras
mus Greek Testament, Basil. 1535.]
[ 2 The first edition was printed in 1530. There were three others printed
in his life-time, in 1539, 1540, 1541. See an account of him in Simon, Hist.
Crit. p. 333.]
VII.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 67
CHAPTER VII.
OF THE BOOK OF BARUCH.
ORDER requires that we should now treat particularly of these
several apocryphal scriptures : and first of those which are counted
parts of the canonical books. Here, in the first place, what is
commonly called "the book of Baruch" claims an examination. To
confirm the authority of this book, our opponents avail themselves
of four arguments. The first is, that there is a quotation made
from the last chapter of Baruch in 2 Mace. ch. ii. The second, that
the councils of Florence and Trent place this book by name amongst
the canonical scriptures. The third, that the church takes some
lessons from this book in her anniversary offices. The fourth, that
many fathers produce testimonies from this book as canonical.
From these premises Bellarmine concludes that this book is truly
canonical (Lib. i. c. 8). To these we can answer briefly : for the
arguments are, as you see, altogether slight ones, and require no
very long reply. Thus, therefore, I answer them severally.
To the first : The second book of Maccabees is apocryphal ; as
I shall hereafter prove by demonstrative arguments. Now one
apocryphal book cannot confirm by its testimony the authority of
another apocryphal book. Therefore this is no argument.
To the second : We care nothing for those councils. They
were popish and altogether antichristian assemblies. The papists
may attribute as much weight to those councils as they please : we
refuse to be pressed or bound by any such authority.
As to what is objected in the third place, although the church
used to read, and still does read, certain parts of this book, yet it by
no means hence follows that the book is in the genuine and strict
sense canonical. For we have shewn above, from Jerome and other
fathers, that the church was wont formerly to read books not
canonical, for the benefit of the people in forming their morals, but
not for confirmation of the faith. Besides, what church is it whose
example they object to us as an argument ? For we are so far from
recognising in the custom of the Roman church the force of so
great an argument, that we count it a matter of very slight im
portance.
To the last : I acknowledge that some testimonies are cited
from this book by the fathers ; and I add too that some of them
52
68 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
believed this piece to be a part of Jeremiah. And, in truth, this
book does seem preferable to the rest of the apocrypha : for every
thing in it, whether we consider the matter or the style, appears
more august and suitable to the sacred character than in the other
books. Nevertheless, the book is apocryphal, as you shall hear.
There is no consequence in this reasoning : Some fathers thought
this book a part of Jeremiah, therefore it is a part of Jeremiah.
For those fathers were in error, as is manifest. Nor is there force
in this inference : Some fathers cited testimonies from this book,
therefore the book hath canonical authority. For testimonies are
often alleged from other books also, which are by no means to be
esteemed canonical. Irenseus cites the book of the Shepherd (as
Eusebius relates, Lib. v. c. 8) l ; but I suppose he did not deem that
book part of the canonical scriptures. Yet, alleging a passage from
it, he hath used the expression, "Well spoke the scripture which
says, &c." And Eusebius writes of him, "He receives the scripture
of the Shepherd." And Nicephorus also attests the same, Lib. iv. c. 14.
In like manner Athanasius, in his third oration against the Arians,
produces something from the book of Baruch : but the same writer
does also, in the same oration, bring forward a testimony, to prove
that the word is God, from the third of Esdras, which book our
adversaries confess to be apocryphal. Testimonies out of this third
book of Esdras are used also by Cyprian (Epist. Lxxiv.) 2 ; by Au
gustine (Vet. ac Nov. Test. Qusost. 109 3 , and Civit. Dei, Lib. xvm.
c. 36) 4 ; and Ambrose (De bono Mortis, c. 10), in order to prove
that souls are not extinguished with the body 5 . Now this book of
Esdras is not canonical, as the papists themselves allow ; so that it
is manifest that the cause is not concluded by this argument.
[* Oti HOVQV Se oldev, aX\a KOL ano^e^rai rr]v rov Tloip-evos ypatfrrjv, \eya&gt;v
" KaXcos 1 ovv ivntv 17 ypac^j) 17 Aeyouo-a, K. r. A." T. II. p. 54. ed. Heinich.j
[ 2 Scientes quia et aptid Esdram veritas vicit, sicut scriptum est, veritas
manet et invalescit in eeternum. p. 215. ed. Fell.]
[ 3 Et audi Zorobabel, qui super omnia ait veritas. Aug. Opp. T. in. p.
11. 2980, A. The reference is 3 Esdr. iii. 12. But this is not a genuine
piece : see the admonition prefixed by the Benedictines.]
[ 4 Nisi forte Esdras in eo Christum prophetasse intelligendus est, quod . . .
. . . veritatem super omnia demonstrayit esse victricem. Ibid. T. vn. 833.
A.B.]
[ 5 De quo tibi Esdrse librum legendum suadeo, qui et illas philosophoruin
nugas despexerit; et abditiore prudentia, quam collegerat ex revelatione,
perstrinxerit eas substantial esse superioris. Epistt. Class, i. Ep. 34. n. 2. T.
vm. p. 433. Paris. 1839.]
VII.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 69
The papists object, that these books of Esdras are not cited by
those fathers as sacred and canonical, but that the book of Baruch
and the rest are cited and mentioned by them in such a manner as
to shew that they thought them to be truly canonical. Therefore
there is no analogy between the two cases. I answer, that they
are indeed styled by them sacred, and scriptures, but in a certain
general sense. For most of them did not suppose that the books
were sacred in such a sense as to leave no difference between them
and the books which are truly divine and canonical. This John
Driedo, one of the chief popish writers, expressly testifies in the
case of this very book of Baruch. For thus he writes (de Cat.
Script. Lib. i. c. 4. ad Difficult. 11): "So Cyprian, Ambrose, and
the other fathers cite sentences from the book of Baruch, and from
the third and fourth of Esdras, not as if they were canonical books,
but as containing salutary and pious doctrines, not contrary, but
rather consonant to our faith 6 ." A papist answers the objection of
the papists : for in these words he denies that the book of Baruch
is either canonical, or cited as such by those fathers. Melchior
Canus too (Lib. xn. c. 6) writes thus of this same book : " For, as
we have shewn in the second book, the church hath not placed the
book of Baruch in the number of the sacred writings so certainly and
clearly, as to make it a plain catholic verity that it is a sacred piece,
or a plain heresy that it is not. That book, therefore, or any other,
which may be called in question without heresy, can not produce
certain and evident verities of the catholic faith 7 ." From this testi
mony of Canus I collect, in the first place, that the book of Baruch
is not clearly canonical : in the next, that we may deny its canonicity
without heresy : lastly, that no firm and evident verity of the
catholic faith can be derived from this book ; an evident proof
that the book itself is apocryphal, since all canonical books are fit
to produce certain and evident verities of the catholic faith.
Aquinas, however, in his Commentary upon Jude, says, that it
[ 6 Sic Cyprianus, Ambrosius, ceterique patres citant sententias ex libro
Baruch, et 3 et 4 Esrae, non tanquam ex canonicis libris, sed tanquam ex
libris continentibus qusedam pia, juvantia et non contraria, sed consona potius
fidei nostrse. Opp. Lovan. 1550. T. I. p. 22.]
[ 7 Nam, ut in secundo libro docuimus, libellum Baruch non adeo explorate
et firmiter in sacroram numero ecclesia reposuit, ut aut ilium esse sacrum
fidei catholicse yeritas expedita sit, aut non esse sacrum hseresis expedita sit.
Libellus ergo iste, sive quilibet alius, qui in qusestionem citra crimen hsereseos
vocari possit, non efficit certas atque constantes catholicse fidei veritates.
Opp. Colon. Agripp. 1605. p. 588.]
70 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [OH.
is " lawful to derive a testimony to the truth from an apocryphal
book/ since Jude the apostle hath cited a passage from the apo
cryphal book of Enoch, v. 14. But, although I by no means deny
that it is just as much lawful to quote a passage from an apocry
phal book, as from a profane author, as Paul cites an Iambic line
from Menander, 1 Cor. xv. 33, a hemistich from Aratus, Acts
xvii. 28, and an heroic verse from Epimenides the Cretan, Tit.
i. 12 ; yet I do not think that this passage, which Jude recites,
is taken from an apocryphal book, because Jude uses the term
Trpoe(p^Tvo- 9 " he prophesied." Consequently, he hath adduced
this as a prophetical testimony : unless, perhaps, he used the word
prophet here in the same sense as Paul when he called Epimenides
a prophet ; though, indeed, he does not style him a prophet simply,
but a prophet of the Cretans.
We have now sufficiently shaken the authority of this book.
For I ask, who wrote it ? Either Baruch himself, or Jeremiah, is
counted the author of the book. But neither of them could have
written it ; as is clear from hence that it was written in Greek,
not in Hebrew, as Jerome tells us, and as the book itself shews.
For Jerome says, in the preface to Jeremiah 1 , that this book is not
read by the Hebrews, nor extant amongst them, and that it was
therefore wholly omitted by him. But if it had been written by
that Baruch, or by Jeremiah himself, it would doubtless have
appeared in Hebrew, not in Greek : for Jeremiah spoke in
Hebrew, and published his prophecies in the Hebrew language ;
and Baruch was Jeremiah s scribe, and committed many things
to writing from Jeremiah s lips, as we find in Jerem. xxxvi. 4.
Besides, the very phraseology and diction is Greek, not so con
densed, nervous, sedate, and majestic as the style of scripture is
wont to be. In the Epistle of Jeremiah, which is recited in
Chap, vi., the expression, " Ye shall be there seven generations,"
(v. 2), is new and foreign to the Hebrew idiom : for in the Hebrew
books the term "generation" is never used to designate a period
often years, as Francis Junius hath correctly observed. Whoever
wrote this book was a Greek, or wrote in Greek. Consequently
he was neither Baruch nor any other of the prophets. Thus we
prove by inevitable deduction that this book must be necessarily
esteemed apocryphal.
[ l Librum autem Baruch notarii ejus, qui apud Hebraeos nee legitur nee
habetur, prsetermisimus. T. ix. p. 783.]
VIII.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 71
CHAPTER VIII.
OF THE SEVEN APOCRYPHAL CHAPTERS OF ESTHER.
So much of Esther as is Hebrew, that is, canonical, we receive ;
and therefore we raise no question concerning those ten chapters
which are contained in the Hebrew books. The whole question
and controversy is concerning those seven last chapters, which are
of a different family and stamp, as we shall easily make appear.
The papists will have those seven chapters joined to the rest,
without any distinction in point of authority, because the Triden-
tine council, which has more weight with them than all reason and
scripture together, commands those books to be received with all
their parts. Their arguments are nearly the same as were alleged
for the book of Baruch. Some passages from these chapters are
read in the offices of the church, and the fathers sometimes adduce
testimonies from them : the little force of which kind of reason
ing we have already sufficiently exposed. They say besides that
Josephus (Antiq. Lib. x. cap. 6 2 ) mentions two epistles of Aha-
suerus, which are found in these last chapters and not in the pre
vious ones. These are the arguments of our opponents.
I do not choose to reply again to what has been already re
futed. But I will observe that the argument which rests upon the
authority of Josephus is inconclusive. For, in the first place, what
if Josephus took something from these chapters, to enlarge or illus
trate his history ? must he therefore have deemed these chapters
to appertain to the canonical scripture? But, concerning this
whole matter, let Lyra answer for me, who, in the close of his
commentary upon this book, makes use of the following expressions 3 :
" The rest which comes after I do not intend to explain, because
it is not in the Hebrew, nor belongs to the canonical scripture,
but rather seems to have been invented by Josephus and other
writers, and afterwards inserted in the vulgar edition." Josephus,
therefore, did not take those things from any canonical book, but
was himself the first writer of them ; and others afterwards, read-
[ 2 The reference should be xi. c. vi. 12. pp. 575, 576. Haverc.]
[ 3 Cetera quse sequuntur non intendo exponere, quia non in Hebrseo sunt,
nee de scriptura canonica, sed magis videntur a Josepho et aliis scriptoribus
conficta, et postea edition! vulgatse inserta. Nic. Lyrani Comment. Antwerp.
1634. in Jin. Estherce.]
72 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
ing them in Josophus, copied them into the Bible. But although
they were, as Lyra says, inserted in the vulgar edition, it does not
therefore follow that they were ever allowed a canonical authority.
Sixtus Senensis (Lib. i.) approves and follows the opinion of Lyra 1 .
Lastly, it is certain that Josephus s own judgment concerning the
canonical books was no other than that of Jerome, as appears from
his first book against Apion. There he determines that no books
are canonical, but such as were written by prophets of ascertained
authority. Now these chapters were not written by any prophet,
which I will prove by the following arguments.
In the first place, the matters related in the former chapters
are told over again in these following ones ; which repeated narra
tion of the same events sufficiently shews that all were not written
by the same person. For there was no reason whatever for his
telling the same history twice over. Nor would the same author
have written the latter part in a different language from the
former. But if he were another person, why yet, if he were a
prophet, did he not use the Hebrew tongue, the proper language
of prophecy ? Learned men make either Ezra, or Joachim the
priest, or Mordecai himself, the author of this book, and recognise
no other than these.
Secondly. There are many incongruities and inconsistencies,
which it is impossible to reconcile, in these chapters, of which I
will produce some specimens. First, in chap. xi. 2, Mordecai is
said to have dreamed of the two eunuchs who conspired against
the king, in the second year. See also chap. xii. 1. But in
the second chapter, which is canonical, ver. 16, we read that this
conspiracy took place in the seventh year of Ahasuerus. Bellar-
mine answers, that the narrative of the plot which is contained in
chap. xii. belongs to the beginning of the book ; but that what we
read to have occurred in the second year in chap. xi. is not to be
understood of the plot, but of the dream of Mordecai : for that the
plot was laid in the seventh year, as we are told in the second
chapter. But all this is said without proofs, and in spite of the
plain declaration of the book itself. For at the close of chap. xi.
Mordecai says that, when he arose, he pondered many thoughts in
his mind concerning that dream, until the night, (ews -7-179 VVKTOS) ;
and that then, as he rested in the court with the two eunuchs, he
[ l Even in our own times, notwithstanding the stringent declaration of
the council of Trent, this seems to have been the opinion of some respect
able Roman Catholic divines, e. g. John in his Einleitung in A. T.j
VIII.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 73
detected their conspiracy. There was not therefore an interval of
five years between the dream of Mordecai and the plot of the
eunuchs, as Bellarmine fancies, but only of one day, if there be
faith in the book itself.
Secondly, the narrative in this book was written many years
after the death of Mordecai. For, in chap, xi. 2 mention is made of
Ptolemy and Cleopatra, who assuredly lived after the times of
Mordecai and of the prophets. Nor can one well understand what
the meaning of that passage is intended to be. Lysimachus of Jeru
salem, the son of Ptolemy, is said to have " interpreted the present
epistle of Phurim," which Dositheus and his son Ptolemy brought in
the reign of Ptolemy and Cleopatra. Bellarmine says it may be
answered, that the first author of this book, who wrote the history
of Esther in Hebrew, drew up only the sum of the story, and that
this Hebrew narrative has come down to us ; that then, at some
other time, the history was written more copiously by some other
person, and translated into the Greek language by Lysimachus, as
is indicated in chap. xi. ; and that not the original book of this
later author, but only a translation of it, is now extant.
But, in the first place, Lysimachus is not here said to have
translated any Hebrew book into the Greek tongue, but only the
epistle of Phurim. And, in the next place, if the assertion that
the later author wrote this history more copiously than the former
were true, then this history, of which a translation only hath
survived, could not be that which the later author wrote : for it
is shorter than the Hebrew history, and does not give the series
of the narrative at all so fully, as every one may readily perceive.
Lastly, who translated this Greek translation of Lysimachus into
Latin? Jerome found a certain Latin translation, and subjoined
it to his version, though containing, as he tells us, some things
which were extant neither in the Hebrew, nor in the text of any
other interpreter. Yet this vulgar translation, which Jerome
deemed utterly unfaithful, is in the highest sense authentic and
canonical with the papists.
[ 2 The passage referred to is plainly a scholium, or marginal note, as
follows : CTOVS Terdprov @a(n\fvovTos IlroXe/iaiov KOI KXeoTrarpas elo-tjveyKe
-, os e(pr) tlvat, leptvs KOI Aeutr^y, Kai UroXf/jLOLos 6 vlos avroO, TTJV irpo-
ToXrjv r&gt;v (ppovpal, TJV (f&gt;aa-av flvai KOI ijpp.rjvevKvai Avcrifjia^ov
bv fv lepovo-aXijfj.. Compare Ussher de LXX. Int. p. 22, and
Valckenaer de Aristobulo Judseo, p. 63, who supposes this Lysimachus to
have been the author also of what is called the Third Book of Maccabees.]
74 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
Thirdly, this pretended author tells us, chap. xii. 5, that a
reward was given by the king to Mordecai for his information ;
whereas, in chap. vi. 3 of the true history, we read that no reward
was bestowed upon him. Bellarmine, however, replies that there
is no difficulty here ; since in chap. xii. that magnificent reward is
meant which he afterwards received. But any one who reads the
place itself will see, that this interpretation can by no means stand.
Far in this twelfth chapter Haman is said to have plotted mischief
against Mordecai, after the gifts were bestowed upon him ; which
cannot be understood of those most distinguished honours and gifts
with which the king graced him after he had read the annals.
For that very morning, as we read in chap, vi., Haman was in
attendance to settle with the king about hanging Mordecai; and
that very day Mordecai was raised to the highest dignity, and
loaded with royal favours. Nor could Haman, after that, attempt
anything against him : for Mordecai was then in the highest
favour with the king, and Haman himself was presently hanged
upon that same day. Therefore here there must be some false
hood upon the other side.
Fourthly, in chap. xii. 6, Haman is said to have been enraged
against Mordecai on account of the eunuchs whom Mordecai
accused, and whom, upon being arraigned of treason, and convicted
by Mordecai s evidence, the king had punished capitally. But it
is incredible that Haman, who had received such honour and dig
nity from the king, should have favoured the treason of the
eunuchs ; and nothing of the kind is found in the true history,
but, on the contrary, a very different cause of his offence and
anger is assigned, chap. iii.
Fifthly, in chap. xv. 7, this author says that, when Esther
came into the king s presence, the king looked upon her with so
angry a countenance, that she fainted through fear. On the con
trary, chap. v. 2, she is said to have obtained great favour on
coming in to the king.
Sixthly, in chap. xvi. 10, Haman is called a Macedonian ;
but in chap. viii. 3, we find him to have been an Agagite, that is,
of the race of Amalek.
Seventhly, Haman is not only said (chap, xvi.) to have been
a Macedonian himself, but also to have designed, after removing
Mordecai and Esther, to lay violent hands upon the king, in order
to transfer the kingdom of the Persians to the Macedonians. But,
first, how could Haman have transferred the kingdom of the Per-
VIII.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 75
sians to the Macedonians, if he had succeeded ever so well in putting
the king to death ? For the kingdom of the Macedonians was at
that time little or nothing. Besides, the true history contains not
a trace of the story told in chap, xvi., that he plotted against
Mordecai and Esther, in order that, by their destruction, he might
the more easily attack the king, and transfer the kingdom to the
Macedonians. For he was not aware that the queen was a Jewess,
or related to Mordecai ; and he devised all sorts of mischief against
Mordecai, not to open himself a way to the kingdom, but simply to
satisfy his malice. For Mordecai was not, in the beginning, when
Haman first conceived this grudge against him, in any station of
authority, so as in any way to eclipse his splendour. But if any one
choose to say that Mordecai s information was the means of saving
the king from assassination, and that thus an obstacle was set in
the way of Haman s ambition, and it was this which kindled such
a blaze of hatred ; he must be given to understand that he contra
dicts the sacred narrative. For that conspiracy of the eunuchs
and the information of Mordecai took place before Haman had
acquired so much favour and power in the royal court, as is mani
fest from the second chapter and the beginning of the third.
All these things are of such a nature, that they can by no means
stand together or be reconciled with each other : whence it follows,
that the authority of these chapters must needs fall to the ground.
And rightly is it ordered that these chapters are not read in our
church.
Thirdly. These chapters are not written in Hebrew. For
Jerome says that he had marked these chapters with an obelus set
before them ; which is the mark by which he is wont to indicate
apocryphal additions. For the pretence of some that they were
once in the Hebrew text, but have now dropped out of it, is easily
refuted by what we have observed already. Jerome had no sus
picion of this, and the style cries out against it, and reason proves
the contrary. For how could they have been better preserved in
the Greek than in the Hebrew ? or what need is there to give any
credit to mere fictions and conjectures of this nature ?
Fourthly. Besides other authors, and some papists also, whom
I have already alleged, Sixtus Senensis, who wrote his Bibliotheca
after the council of Trent, in the first book of that work asserts
these chapters to be apocryphal; a concession which he never
would have made, unless overcome by the very force of truth,
since he labours so energetically to maintain the credit of the other
76 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
apocryphal pieces. Nor did the Tridentine decree, requiring the
books there mentioned to be received with their parts^ avail to
turn him from his opinion. For he contends that this is no native
and genuine part of the Book of Esther, but that in these chapters
all is supposititious. He writes in plain words, that " by reason of
these strips appended, inserted by the rashness of certain writers
from various quarters 1 ," it had come to pass that it was late ere
this book acquired a canonical authority amongst Christians. So
clearly did pious men see these to be fabulous, that they threw a
shade of suspicion over even the canonical portions. And though
this papist, Sixtus, is blamed by the Jesuits, yet is he not refuted.
But let us leave them to quarrel amongst themselves.
CHAPTER IX.
OF THE APOCRYPHAL PARTS OF DANIEL.
To confirm the authority of these parts, the papists can allege
no peculiar argument. For their allegation, that the fathers quote
testimonies from these chapters as well as from the others, and call
them testimonies of scripture, is devoid of strength. They do in
deed quote them, and call them scriptures ; but they do not affirm
them to be canonical scriptures, such as the Books of Moses and
the prophets. They are styled scriptures, because they used to
be publicly read in the church, that the people might thence take
noble examples of morals, and were preferred (as Augustine says in
a certain place) to the treatises of all other discoursers 2 . But this
is far from proving the authority of these portions equal to that of
the remainder of the book, which is truly canonical. Now, there
fore, let us say a few words of that Hymn of the three children
which is commonly placed in, and reckoned to the end of the third
chapter; and of the History of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon,
which are joined in the vulgar Bibles with the prophecy of Daniel,
and counted a part of it. These pieces I will prove to be spurious
and apocryphal by sound and cogent arguments.
[* Propter has appendicum lacinias hinc inde quorundam scriptorura te-
meritate insertas. p. 20. Paris. 1610.]
[ 2 Qui sententiis tractatorum instrui volunt, oportet ut istum librum
sapientise omnibus tractatoribus anteponant. August, de Prsedest.
Sanct. Lib. i. c. 14.]
IX.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 77
First, then, let us hear Jerome expressly pronouncing his
judgment concerning these portions. Thus he speaks, in his proem
to Daniel, and in the preface of his commentary upon that pro
phet : " Daniel,, as it stands in the Hebrew text, has neither the
History of Susanna, nor the Hymn of the three children, nor the
fables of Bel and the Dragon ; which we, considering that they are
now dispersed over the whole world, have subjoined with an obelus
prefixed, and [as it were] striking them through, lest the ignorant
should think that we had cut off a great part of the volume 3 . *
From these words of Jerome we collect : 1. That no part of these
pieces was found in the Hebrew, which sufficiently proves them to
be spurious. 2. That they seemed to Jerome to deserve the stroke
of that obelus by which he uses to distinguish the apocryphal from
the canonical passages. 3. That, nevertheless, they were in use
and read every where. 4. That he would himself have omitted
them, but that he feared the calumnies of certain persons. 5.
That it was the unlearned who supposed that these were really
any parts of Daniel.
Secondly, John Driedo (de Catal. Scripturae, Lib. i. cap. ult.)
does not say that this history is canonical, but only that it is not
to be despised ; and that he who believes these things to be all
true, falls into no pernicious error ; " even as we read," says he,
" the acts of the martyrs, from which we do not derive arguments
for matters of faith 4 ." You see what distinguished and honourable
opinions the papists themselves entertain of this history. We our
selves can not think more lowly than they do of this class of
writings. But that learned theologian saw that it was impossible
to frame any more exalted judgment of these fragments, since they
are not found in the Hebrew and sacred volumes of the scrip
ture, but are derived from the Greek translation of the worthless
and perfidious Theodotion.
Thirdly, that Paronomasia, of which Jerome speaks in the pre
face to Daniel, awo TOV o"^ivou cr^ idei, CLTTO TOV TTQ IVOV Tnoj crei 5 ,
[ 3 Apud Hebrseos nee Susannse habes historiam, nee hymnum trium puc-
rorum, nee Belis dracoiiisque fabulas : quas nos, quia in toto orbe disperse
sunt, veru^- anteposito, eoque jugulante, subjecimus, ne videremur apud im-
peritos magnam partem voluminis detruncasse. Hieron. Opp. T. ix. 1362.
ed. Vallars. Veronse. 1738.]
[ 4 Ut legimus gesta martyrum, ex quibus argumentura non sumimus effi-
cax ad demonstrandum ea quse sunt fidei. T. i. p. 22.]
[ 5 Audivi ego quendam de prseceptoribus Judseorum, quum Susannas
derideret historiam, et a Greece nescio quo diceret esse confictam, illud op-
78 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
proves that this little story was not written in Hebrew, but in
Greek. Daniel asked one of the elders, under what tree he had
found Susanna with her paramour. He answered, under a mastick
tree, O-^LVOV. Then Daniel forthwith, alluding to the name of the
tree, subjoins, cr^/cjet &lt;je o Oeos. Afterwards he comes to the other,
and asks him under what tree he had seen Susanna committing
so foul a crime ? He mentions a different tree, and says that
it was under a holm-oak, trpivov. Then Daniel, using a similar
play upon the name, brings in his judgment, Trpicrei ere 6 Geoj.
This Greek etymology (for so Jerome calls it) shews that the
history itself was written in the Greek language : for you will find
no allusion of the kind in the corresponding Hebrew names and
verbs. Therefore it was not written by Daniel, or any prophet.
The papists object, that this argument was long ago answered
by Origen in his Epistle to Julius Africanus, mentioned by Euse-
bius 1 , who alleges that there were words in the Hebrew which
contained plainly such an allusion, but that the Greek interpreter
had changed the names to preserve the paronomasia. But nothing
can be slighter or more futile than that conjecture. For, in the
first place, though I confess that Origen did write about this mat
ter to Julius Africanus, yet what he wrote is not known. For the
piece upon that subject which hath lately appeared hath not yet
gained any clear credit 2 .
I ask, in the next place, what are those Hebrew names of trees
which will yield this allusion ? a question which must needs bring
them to a stand.
Thirdly, the Holy Spirit does not use to affect this change of
names, or put a force upon the truth of things, or alter their deno
minations, especially seeing that the refutation of the charge de
pends upon the very diversity of the names. For if they answered
that they had seen Susanna under an oak or a fig, the story should
not have been told as if they had said a mastick or a holm-tree,
since that is not true in fact. Effectually to discover the falsehood
of these calumnies of the elders, the very names of the trees should
have been preserved.
ponere quod Origeni quoque Africanus opposuit, etymologias has OTTO TOV
a^ivov cr^tVat, /ecu OTTO TOV Trpivov rrpia-ai, de Grseco sermone descendere. Opp.
T. ix. 1364.]
[ x Hist. Eccl. vi. c. 31.]
[ 2 All doubts, however, were very soon removed by its publication in
Greek by Hsesclielius. August. Vindel. 1602.]
IX.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 79
Fourthly, I cannot understand how it should be taken for a
solid proof of the falsehood of the charges, that because different
trees were named by the elders, therefore it should be evident that
Susanna was undeservedly accused. They might have said that
they had not specially observed what kind of tree it was, and so
might easily have been mistaken. They who were so wicked in
devising the charge would not have been so stupid in proving it.
Lastly, when they object to us in this cause so often the
authority of Origen, let them attend to what Jerome hath
written of him in the preface to Daniel. " I wonder," says he,
"that some querulous persons should be indignant at me, as if I
had mutilated the book ; whereas Origen, and Eusebius, and Apol-
linarius, and other ecclesiastical men and the doctors of Greece,
confess, as I have said, that these visions are not extant in the
Hebrew, and declare that they are not bound to answer Porphyry
in defence of things which have no authority of sacred scripture 3 ."
If that be true which Jerome writes of Origen, they have no
reason to call Origen a patron of this history. For Origen together
with the other Greek doctors expressly affirmed, if we believe
Jerome, that these pieces were not extant in the Hebrew, nor pos
sessed the authority of sacred scripture.
In fine, the papists cannot agree amongst themselves who
that Daniel was who was thrust into the lion s den for slaying
the dragon and destroying Bel, and was suffered to remain there
six days. Bellarmine, after carefully weighing the whole matter,
at length arrives at the conclusion, that this Daniel was not the
same person as the distinguished prophet, but a different one.
For the great prophet Daniel was of the tribe of Juda, as is
manifest: but the Seventy, as Jerome testifies in the preface to
Daniel, make that Daniel who had intercourse with Cyrus, a
priest of the tribe of Levi ; and the more learned papists think
that this was the same Daniel who destroyed Bel and the dragon,
and was .preserved six days in the den of lions. Thus these
things cannot be speciously defended, without introducing a second
Daniel contrary to the common and general opinion. But what
proof have we of the existence of such a Daniel? What credit
[ 3 Et miror quasdam ^fji^n^ioipovs indignari mihi, quasi ego decurtaverim
librum : quum et Origenes, et Eusebius, et Apollinarius, aliique ecclesiastic!
viri et doctores Grsecise has, ut dixi visiones non haberi apud HebrEeos fate-
antur, nee se debere respondere Porphyrio pro his quse nullam scripturse
sanctse auctoritatem prsebeant. Hieronym. Opp. T. v. 619.]
80 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
do the stories which the Seventy tell about this matter deserve ?
And if what is told in this fourteenth chapter was not done by
that great Daniel, but by some other, why is it made a part
of that Daniel ? why said to be his, and attributed to him ? Let
all, therefore, understand that the Daniel who subverted Bel, burnt
the dragon, and remained six days in the den, was not that great
Daniel whose prophetic book is extant, and worthy of all authority,
and that by the confession of the papists themselves, but some
other unknown, unheard of, and uncertain Daniel. But we have
hitherto never heard of more prophets of the name of Daniel than
one, and may therefore dismiss this second Daniel without further
ceremony.
CHAPTER X.
OF THE BOOK OF TOBIT.
AFTER having proved that those fragments which are stuck
upon certain canonical books should be cut off, and plucked out
from the body of sacred scripture, it follows now that we should
treat of those six entire apocryphal books.
And first let us consider the book of Tobit, for the authority of
which the papists adduce no special argument whatsoever. For,
though it be quoted by the fathers, it does not thence follow that
it is a canonical book, as we have already clearly proved : and as
to its being called " divine" by Ambrose, the meaning is not to
teach us that the book is undoubtedly canonical and equal in every
respect to those which really form part of the canon, but that it is
a book by no means to be despised or esteemed lightly. For
although it is not truly canonical, yet it may be styled divine, as it
was wont to be read in the church, and was joined with the canoni
cal books in one volume, so as commonly to pass under the name
of scripture. For that it is not properly canonical, we have shewn
by many testimonies of the fathers, and can demonstrate by plain
arguments. But here consider how the papists run into a clear
contradiction. Bellarmine confesses that Jerome rejects this book,
and the rest which are involved in the present controversy, from
the canon of scripture ; and pretends that it is no wonder he should
do so, since no general council (which hath the regular privilege of
determining and defining what should be deemed the canon of
scripture) had decreed the canonicity of these books. Yet, in the
X.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 81
meanwhile, the papists bring testimonies from Ircnaeus, Cyprian,
Hilary, Ambrose, to prove these books canonical. But how or by
what authority could those fathers affirm these books to be canoni
cal, when that matter was not yet certain and clearly known, being
as yet not decided by any general council? Therefore, either
this is not the exclusive prerogative of a general council, or those
fathers followed opinion rather than judgment and reason, when they
received (as our opponents imagine) these books for canonical, which
the church had not yet approved by its sanction and testimony.
Let us now bring forward some objections against the authority
of this book. And first, Jerome witnesses the judgment which the
church of old passed upon this book. For he says, in the preface
to the books of Solomon, that the church does not receive the
book of Tobit into the canonical scriptures 1 . Therefore the catholic
church (of which Jerome speaks) hath judged this book not to be
canonical. And, in the prologue to the book of Tobit 2 , he wonders
at the importunity of those by whom he had been induced to
translate into the Latin tongue this book, which the Hebrews had
cut off from the list of the divine scriptures, and which was only
to be read in the Chaldee, a language with which he was unac
quainted. Wherefore he confesses that he had availed himself of
the assistance of another, and had rendered in Latin words that
which some unknown interpreter, skilled both in the Hebrew and
Chaldee languages, had dictated to him in Hebrew. So that
Jerome hath rather translated some other person s version of this
book than the book itself. Besides, the book is now extant only in
Greek and Latin, and it is wholly uncertain in what language it
was originally written. Jerome writes that he had seen a Chaldaic
copy of it, but attributes to it no sort of authority. And the
present copies of the book are exceeding various and corrupt, as
may be easily detected by a collation of them. What more do we
[ l Judith, et Tobi, et Machabseorum libros legit quidem ecclesia, sed inter
canonicas scripturas non recipit. Hieronym. Opp. T. ix. 1296.]
[ 2 Mirari non desino exactionis vestrse instantiam : exigitis enim ut librum
Chaldseo sermone conscriptum ad Latinum stylum traham, librum utique
Tobice, quern Hebrsei de Catalogo divinarum scripturarum secantcs, his qua?
Apocrypha memorant, manciparunt Utriusque linguae (Hebraese ct
Chaldsese) peritissimum loquacem inveniens, unius diei laborem arripui ; et
quidquid ille Hebraicis verbis expressit, hoc ego, accito notario, sermonibus
Latinis exposui. Opp. T. x. 293. The common reading is Hagiograplia for
Apocrypha: but the correctness of the latter is so evident, that it is ad
mitted by the Benedictines and Vallarsius.j
[WHITAKER.]
82 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
want? The book may speak for itself, the whole character of
which shews, as clear as the light, that it hath no claims to
canonicity.
CHAPTER XL
OF THE BOOK OF JUDITH.
OUR adversaries snatch up an argument from Jerome in favour
of this book, which goes under the name of Judith. For Jerome
tells us, in the preface to the book of Judith, that this book was
counted in the sacred scriptures by the Mcene synod 1 . Therefore,
say they, Jerome himself testifies that this book at least is canonical.
But this testimony injures our opponents cause more than it helps
it. For first, if that synod received this book into the number of
the sacred scriptures, it affected those others, which it omitted,
with no slight prejudice. For if, as these men will have it, it
determined this book to be canonical, why did it not comprehend
the others also in the same decree, if they be really canonical ?
Secondly, Jerome s words are, " We read that the synod of
Nice counted this book in the number of sacred scriptures." But
where this is read, he tells us not. And if the Mcene synod
had determined the canonicity of this book, the council of Laodicea,
which was held a short time after that of Nice, would not have left
it in the Apocrypha. And Erasmus hath rightly noted, that Jerome
does not himself affirm that this book was counted sacred scripture
by the council of Nice.
Thirdly, "To be canonical scripture" is one thing, and "to
be counted in the number of sacred scripture" is another thing.
For those pieces which are read along with the sacred scriptures
for the edification of the people, although not for confirmation of
doctrines, are counted in the number of sacred scriptures. And
Sed quia hunc librum Synodus Nicena in numero sanctarum scrip-
turarum legitur computasse, &c. Opp. T. x. 22. Most critics suppose that
the council of Nice in some of their documents had quoted some testimony
from the book of Judith : but Vallarsius thinks it more probable that Jerome
alludes to some spurious index of the scriptures, forged under the name of
that council. He appeals, very properly, to Cassiodorus, Instit. Divin. Lit.
c. 14, to shew that such indexes existed, and passed under the names of the
councils of Nice and Chalcedon.]
XI.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 83
that this was the mind and meaning of Jerome, is plain from
Jerome s own words in the preface to the Proverbs. " The
church," says he, " reads this book, but does not receive it amongst
the canonical -scriptures 2 ." Although, therefore, this book be read,
and counted in the number of sacred scriptures, yet is it not re
ceived amongst those scriptures which are canonical and sacred in
the highest sense. This Jerome asserts in plain words ; but this
he would never have asserted, if the council of Nice had determined
this book to be canonical. Nay, in this very preface Jerome
shews this book not to be canonical by two arguments : first, be
cause the Hebrews esteem it apocryphal, and unfit for confirm
ing anything which may be called in question 3 : secondly, because
the book was written in the Chaldee language, and the copies of it
grossly corrupted and depraved. For which reason Jerome, in
translating it, gave the general sense rather than the exact mean
ing of each word, and only rendered into Latin what he found un-
corrupted in the Chaldee 4 . Now, however, even those Chaldee
copies themselves have perished ; and the Greek ones differ widely
from Jerome s version. Besides, Josephus, in his commentaries
upon the Jewish antiquities, does not touch at all upon this story
of Judith, a sufficient proof that Josephus did not consider it
canonical.
But now let us estimate the authority of this book by the
evidence of the book itself, and briefly examine what the times
were of which it professes to be the history. For the opinions of
authors upon this subject are various ; nor is it needful that we
should enumerate them particularly. Let us hear, then, the de
terminations of those who at present sway the Romish schools.
Sixtus Senensis (Lib. vm. HaDr. 11) writes, that he who is called
Nabuchodonosor was Ahasuerus, the son of Darius Hystaspes,
and that he reigned in Babylon after Cyrus was slain. But no
Persian emperor was called Nabuchodonosor; and the Persian
kings fixed the seat of their empire not at Nineve but at Babylon.
[ 2 Vide supra, p. 81.]
[ 3 Apud Hebrseos liber Judith inter Apocrypha legitur : cujus auctoritas
ad roboranda ilia quse in contentionem veniunt minus idonea judicatur.
Chaldaeo tamen sermone conscriptus, inter historias computatur. Opp. T. x.
p. 22.]
[ 4 Magis sensum e sensu, quani ex verbo verbum transferens. Multorum
codicum varietatem vitiosissimam amputavi : sola ea, qusc intelligentia integra
in verbis Chaldseis invenirc potui, Latinis express!. Ibid.]
62
84 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
But he who sent Holofernes with an army to subdue the world, is
called in the first chapter of this book Nabuchodonosor, and is said
to have reigned at Nineve. There are many other incongruities
besides, so that Bellarmine refers this history to the times of Ma-
nasseh, whom Nabuchodonosor took captive, brought to Babylon,
and after a long while set at liberty. He supposes, therefore, that
these events happened a little after the return of Manasseh, fol
lowing Melchior Canus, (Lib. n. c. 16) : which opinion (although
repugnant to that of all his predecessors, as Eusebius in his Chro-
nicon, Augustine, Philo, Bede, Lyra, Driedo and others,) seems yet
much more probable than that of the rest, since it is certain that
there was no Nabuchodonosor in existence after the Babylonian cap
tivity. But now let us sift this hypothesis, and prove that these
things could not have been done even in the time of Manasseh.
First, in the beginning of the fifth chapter, when Holofernes
perceives that the Jewish people were meditating and preparing war,
he convokes all his officers and asks them what people this was,
and who was their leader. But if Manasseh had been only a short
time before taken captive by the king of the Chaldeans, and carried
into Babylon, neither Holofernes nor the Chaldeans could have
been so ignorant who was their king as to be forced to seek and
obtain information upon this subject from Achior the Ammonite.
For they are made to inquire concerning the people, the country,
the cities, the power of the inhabitants, their mode of warfare,
their leader and king, as if they had never heard of such a nation
as the Jews. But the Chaldeans had before then made war upon
this people, wasted Judrea, taken Jerusalem, and carried away with
them Manasseh into Babylon. Therefore these things about which
they now inquire could not have been unknown to them.
Secondly, when Holofernes came into Judaaa, the temple was
overthrown. For these are the very words of Achior, in the
Greek text : O vaos TOV Geoi; avrwv eyev^Orj el s $a&lt;pos KUI a\
TroXets avrcov Kpar^9rja-av. " The temple of the Jews at Jeru
salem was overturned and rased to the ground, and their cities
occupied." But in the captivity of Manasseh there was no sub
version of the temple, nor was the temple levelled to the ground
before the reign of Zedekiah, in which (as everybody knows) the
great captivity took place.
Thirdly, if these things had happened in the time of Manasseh
and after his return, the Jewish people would not have treated
the messengers of the king of Babylon so shamefully, or dismissed
XI.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 85
them so Jgnominiously, as we are told they did in the first chapter.
For the Jews had then experienced both the power and the cle
mency of the Babylonians.
Fourthly, in the history of the Kings, in which the acts of
Manasseh are written, we read nothing of this kind about Holo-
fernes ; which being a thing of such a remarkable character, it is
surprising that the Holy Spirit should have omitted to mention it.
Fifthly, in the last chapter we read that Judith lived more
than 105 years, and that while Judith lived, after this victory no
enemy troubled Israel. This peace, therefore, lasted many years.
But now, when Holofernes was in Judaea, Judith had not passed
the flower of her age ; for she was very beautiful, and she pleased
Holofernes, and is called a girl, chap. xii. : so that, after this
victory, there must have been peace for near a hundred years.
For the peace is said to have subsisted many years, both during her
life and after she was dead. But Amon succeeded Manasseh, and
reigned two years ; Josiah succeeded Amon, and held the sove
reignty thirty-one years. After the death of Josiah, a mighty mass
of trouble fell upon the state, which could not be allayed until it
was entirely subverted, and the people carried into captivity. How
can we assign that long peace to such times as these ?
Sixthly, I should wish to know, (for I am by no means dis
posed to think it,) whether there was any Nabuchodonosor in
Manasseh s time. For Nabuchodonosor the first, whose son was
the second and great Nabuchodonosor, began to reign with Josiah,
who was 33 years later than Manasseh. Before him, if we believe
history, no Nabuchodonosor reigned either at Nineve or Babylon.
For, as to the allegation that all the kings of the Babylonians were
called Nabuchodonosor, I grant it to have been so after that great
Nabuchodonosor, whose greatness was the cause that this name
became hereditary in the line of Babylonian kings : but there is
no evidence that they all went by that name before him.
We have now shewn plainly enough that this history does not
suit the times of Manasseh. And the argument which led Bellar-
mine to cast it in those times is utterly destitute of force. Eliakim,
says he, was at this time high priest, as he is called in the fifteenth
chapter of Judith; and in the time of Hezekiah there was a
certain Eliakim priest, the son of Hilkiah. But Bellarmine did
not observe that that Eliakim, who is mentioned in the history of
Hezekiah, was not a priest, but a certain officer, of the tribe of
.Judah and the family of David, as appears from Isai. xxii. and
86 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
2 Kings xviii. For he succeeded Shebna, who was either the royal
scribe, as some render it, or the chancellor, as others, or the master
of the royal household, as others ; but who neither was, nor could
have been, a priest. Josephus, in the last book of his Jewish
antiquities, gives a list of all the pontiffs of the Jews, from Aaron
down to the last, yet names no Eliakim or Joakim about these
times. You see what sort of foundation Bellarmine had for his
opinion concerning the history of Judith.
Genebrard, in his Chronology, (Lib. n. anno mundi 3560 l )
assigns the date of this history otherwise, but much more rashly.
For he says this was the same Nabuchodonosor, who subdued
Zedekiah, took Jerusalem, and carried the people into captivity ;
that he sent Holofernes into Judaea in the 13th year of his reign,
and in the 19th transferred the remainder of the Jews to Babylon.
But Genebrard hath not made a correct distribution of the times.
For how can it be truly said that Judith lived so long after
that calamity, and that peace subsisted during her life and a long
time after it? Or how could the Chaldeans have failed to be
thoroughly acquainted with the people and king of the Jews, when
Nabuchodonosor had, but a little before, made Zedekiah himself
king of the Jews ? No time, therefore, can be found, which suits
with these transactions. For it is manifest that none of these
three opinions is true, and our adversaries can invent none truer
than these.
CHAPTER XII.
OF THE BOOK OF WISDOM.
WE have now to treat of those two books, whereof one is
called the Wisdom of Solomon, the other Ecclesiasticus ; which
pieces we deny not to be replete with very beautiful admonitions,
precepts, and sentiments, yet maintain to be deservedly placed
amongst the apocryphal scriptures by our churches. Besides the
common arguments, which we have often answered already, our
adversaries allege one peculiar to the case of that book which is
called the Wisdom of Solomon. They pretend that the apostle
Paul hath used the testimony of this book, Rom. xi. 34, where he
says, Ti s eyvw vovv Kvpiou, rj rts cnVx/3oiAos avrov eyevero , "Who
[ l p. 236. Paris. 1600.]
XII.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 87
hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been his coun
sellor ?" Likewise that the expression, Heb. i. 3, " Who, being the
brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person," is
borrowed from the seventh chapter of this book.
As to the first place, I answer : The apostle does not intimate
that he is there citing any testimony. For there is no consequence
in the reasoning, that, because similar words to those are found in
this place, therefore the apostle quoted this place. And even if
the apostle recited the words of some prophetic scripture, or alluded
to some scripture, we are not therefore obliged to suppose that it
was to this place in Wisdom. For the same sentiment is found in
Isaiah xl. 13, in these words : " Who hath directed the Spirit of
the Lord, or, being his counsellor, hath taught him?" &c. Thus
Thomas Aquinas, in his fifth lecture upon Horn. xi. says, that the
apostle here brings in the authority of Isaiah 2 . So also Cajetan,
and our countrymen the Rhemist interpreters, in their English
version. Add to this, that, whereas there have been various
indexes of testimonies cited out of the old Testament in the new,
drawn up by many persons, and placed in various editions of the
Bible, no one of these exhibits any testimony from this book of
Wisdom, and all refer this citation by name to Isaiah 3 .
As to the second place, the apostle makes no citation, as is
evident. For what though some words be found in the book of
Wisdom not unlike those wherein the apostle describes the person
of Christ ? For indeed it cannot be said that the words are iden
tically the same, but only that they are similar. So that this
argument has but weak force to prove the canonical authority
of this book. But now we, on the other hand, will produce some
considerations which may shew that the book is apocryphal. We
concede indeed, with Epiphanius, that it is a useful book ; but we
add also with Epiphanius, that "it is not referred to the number
of the canonical scriptures :" which assertion he extends also to the
following one.
First, this book, as all allow, was written in Greek, and that, as
hath already been proved, is sufficient to exclude it from the canon.
Secondly, Jerome, in the Preface to Proverbs, says of these
two books, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus : " These two volumes one
may read indeed for the edification of the people, but not to
[ 2 T. xvi. p. 37. 2. Opp. Venet. 1593.]
[ 3 It is in fact the Sept. translation of that passage, with only the varia
tion of fj for icaf.]
88 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
confirm the authority of the dogmas of the church 1 ." "Where also
he calls the book pseudepigraphal 2 , so as that, although it goes
under the name of Solomon, it is not to be supposed to be really
his ; and observes that it " savours of Grecian eloquence."
Thirdly, most of the ancients determine that this book was
written by Philo, who certainly neither was a prophet, nor could
have written a canonical book of the old Testament. For he
lived after Christ in the time of Caligula, before whom he dis
charged his celebrated embassy on behalf of the Jews. But then
the time of the old Testament had already passed; and Christ
says, " The law and the prophets were until John the Baptist."
For the conjecture of some, and Bellarmine among the rest, that
there was some other Jewish Philo, is grounded upon no testimony
of antiquity, and is rejected by Sixtus Senensis, (Lib. vin. c. 9), and
is at variance with the general opinion of the doctors. For thus
writes Bonaventura in his Commentary upon this book : " The
first efficient cause, in the way of a compiler, was Philo the wisest
of the Jews 3 ." So that he determines it to have been written by
Philo, not by Solomon. But by what Philo ? By any other than
him who flourished after Christ, and wrote so many pieces with
so much eloquence? of whom some one said, $ YiXdrtov &lt;pi\aj-
v%ei, r} &lt;&i\wv TrXaTw^et 4 . Bonaventura subjoins, " who lived
in the times of the apostles." It is evident therefore what Philo he
supposed the author of this book. For he recognised no other
Philo ; and he tells us that the same was said by Rabanus. For
Josephus, in his first book against Apion, names a certain older
Philo, but one who was a Gentile and a philosopher, not a Jew
or conversant with the scriptures 5 . Wherefore, since this book was
[ ! Hsec duo ecclesia legat ad edificationem plebis, non ad auctoritatem
ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam. T. ix. 1296.]
[ 2 Alms ^evdcTriypcxpos, qui Sapientia Salomoiiis inscribitur ct
ipse stylus Grsecam eloquentiam redolet; et nonnulli veterum scriptorum
hunc esse Judsei Philonis afnrmant. T. ix. 1295. Hence some have en
deavoured to explain how it came to be attributed to Solomon, Philo s name
in Hebrew being Jedidiah.]
[ 3 Proxima causa efficiens per modum compilantis fuit Philo sapientissimus
Judseorum, qui temporibus apostolorum fuit. Opp. T. I. p. 341. Lugd. 1G68.]
[ 4 Hieronym. in Catal. sub voc. PHILO. Photius. Cod. CV. Suidas, Voc.
4&gt;iXcoz&gt;, &c.]
[ 5 *O p.vroi 3&gt;a\r]pvs Aijuyrpios KOI &lt;3&gt;iXo&gt;z/ 6 7rp(rftvTpos KOI
ov TroXv rrjs oXrjdfias dnyp-apTov ol$ o vyyivcoo Keiv aiov ov yap fvffv avrois
Trdo-rjs aKpifaias roly rjfjifrepois ypdp,p,aari TrapanoKovBeiv. Joseph US, C. Apion.
Lib. i. c. 23. p. 458. ed. Haverc.]
XII.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 89
written by that Philo the Jew in the time of the apostles, it cannot
be by any means canonical. For if Philo were a true prophet,
or imbued with the prophetic spirit, why did he not receive Christ?
Why not believe the gospel? Why was he a stranger to the
apostles ? Why are not his other books had in similar honour ? Cer
tainly none of the ancients ever said that this Philo was a Christian.
How then, after Christ, should a man who was not a Christian have
written a book worthy to be classed amongst the canonical books
of the old Testament ? But the most learned of the papists them
selves allow that the book was not written by Solomon, so that
that point needs not our confirmation. For if Solomon had written
this book, it would not have been written in Greek but in He
brew, as the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song. But, as to
the notion of some, who make Solomon the author of this book,
because Solomon is introduced in chap. ix. making prayers and
vows, it has no argumentative validity whatsoever. For that might
have been done in the way of imitation by the writer whoever he
might be : so that they who argue thence that Solomon must have
been the writer himself, are grievously deceived. Jodocus Clito-
va3us and Sixtus Senensis are chargeable with this ignorance and
error. But, with better reason, John Driedo (Lib. i. c. 4, ad 4 m .
difficult. 6 ) concludes that this book was not written by Solomon,
and says that the manner of scripture requires, that he who speaks
should speak in the person of another. So John Capistranus,
in the preface to his Speculum Clerisorum, says that Philo speaks
in the person of Solomon 7 .
Fourthly, the church in old times judged no otherwise of this
book than Jerome and we do ; and this may be collected even from
Augustine, whom our adversaries name upon their side. For in his
book de Prcedestinatione Sanctorum, c. 14, when he had cited a
testimony from the book of Wisdom, chap. 4, " Speedily was he
taken away, lest that wickedness should alter his understanding ;"
many pious and catholic brethren cried out against him that the
book was not canonical 8 . Andradius, in his Defence of the Council
of Trent, (Lib. in.) attacks Chemnitz for using this place and tes
timony out of Augustine with many reproaches, in which attack
[ 6 pp. 41. 42. De Eccl. Script. Lovain. 1533. J
[ 7 Et cum Philone in persona Salomonis divinum presidium . . . . in-
vocabo. p. 2. Yenet. 1580.J
[ 8 Quod a me quoque positum fratres istos ita respuisse dixistis, tanquain
non de libro canonico adhibitum. Opp. T. x. p. 807. Par. 1690.]
90 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
Bellarmine also joins (Lib. i. c. 12), but unreasonably. For, what
ever may have been Augustine s own opinion of this book, yet it is
evident that others did not think it canonical, and that their judg
ment was the received opinion of those churches. Nor does Augus
tine contend very anxiously or earnestly for the authority of the
book : he only says that it is not " to be despised," since it had
been so long read with great reverence in the church, and that it
was "to be preferred to all the treatises of discoursers 1 ;" which may
perhaps be conceded to him. But if Augustine had thought that the
book was certainly canonical, he would never have been so slack
and cool in defending its authority, but would have blamed with
much severity those who rejected the book as utterly without claims
to a place in the canon. In truth, what he hath written upon this
subject is much more intended to screen himself from odium than to
fortify the authority of this book. But we understand already that
the book is not canonical, and we want nothing more.
CHAPTER XIII.
OF THE BOOK OF ECCLESIASTICUS.
OUR adversaries can allege no special argument in behalf of
this book ; and we need not repeat our answers to the common
ones. Let us, on our side, bring some proofs to shew that the
book is not canonical. First, we may collect that this book is
not canonical from the fact of its having been written in Greek,
upon the principles already explained. The grandfather of Jesus
had written some things in Hebrew, which this Jesus translated
into the Greek language, as we read in the prologue 2 . But the
Hebrew original itself, when it was extant, never possessed a
prophetic credit or authority, and hath now entirely disappeared ;
so that now nothing remains but Jesus Greek version, which is full
of many faults and blemishes. Nor was this Jesus anything more
than a mere translator.
Secondly, how highly this translator thought of himself and
his own version, appears plainly from his own words and confession
in the prologue. He says, that the Hebrew cannot be exactly
rendered into Greek : (why so ?) and he asks pardon, if he should
[* Vide supra, p. 76.]
[ 2 C O irdmros pov lr]&lt;rovs .... TrporJxOr) KOI avros (ruyypd-^ai n r&gt;v fls
K&lt;U (ro&lt;f)iav avrjKovrav. Prolog, in Sapient. Jesu fil. Sirach.]
XIII.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 91
seem in some places to fail of an adequate power of expression 3 .
By all which he sufficiently proves that he is neither a prophet
nor endowed with a prophetic spirit. For the Holy Spirit asks
pardon of no one, hesitates not in the choice of words, and ever
reaches the mark he aims at ; especially if the writer apply due
diligence, as this author professes that he hath.
Lastly, what is written of Samuel in this book, chap. 49 4 , is
taken variously and doubtfully by many, as we see from Augus
tine (ad Simplicianum, Lib. n. quaest. 3, and de Cura pro mortuis,
cap. 15). For the passage, 1 Sam. 28, is rather to be understood
of a diabolical spectre; since the souls of the saints cannot be
evoked by magical arts or incantations. Wherefore Augustine
(De Doctr. Chr. Lib. n. c. 23 5 ) says, "that the image of the dead
Samuel gave a true prediction to Saul." Where he indicates that
it was not Samuel himself, but an image or semblance of Samuel,
that conversed with Saul. The same father, in his book de Octo
Dulcit. QusBst. (qu9Bst. 6), after disputing somewhat on the other
side of this question, at last subjoins : " However there is in this
matter a readier way of escaping difficulty, and more easy view of
the meaning of the passage, if we suppose that it was not really the
spirit of Samuel that was roused from its repose, but some phantom
and imaginary illusion produced by diabolical devices : which the
scripture therefore calls by the name of Samuel, because images
are wont to be called by the names of those things of which they
are images." And so in the sequel he concludes that " the scrip
ture says that Samuel appeared, even though, perchance, it was
the image of Samuel shewn by the devices of him who transforms
himself into an angel of light, and his ministers as the ministers
of righteousness 6 ." Likewise in his treatise de Mirabilib. Scripture
[ 8 TIapaKK\T](rd .... &lt;rvyyvwp,r]v fx fiv e&gt;&lt; * y &V SoKcofiev rw&gt;v Kara rfjv
7rf(pi\07rovrjp,va)v Ticrl T&gt;V \et-eatv advvap.f1v ov yap icrodvvcifjie i avra
Ls c E/3pcuoTt \ey6fjiva, KCU orav p,fTa^6fj fls erepav y\oxr(Tav. Ibid.]
[ 4 xlvi. 20. Kat /uera TO vTrvSxrat avrov fTrpocpiJTfvo-cv. The Church of
England omits this Terse in reading Ecclus. xlvi. as the evening lesson for
November 16.]
[ 5 Non enim, quia imago Samuelis mortui Sauli regi vera prsenuntiavit,
propterea talia sacrilegia, quibus imago ilia prsesentata est, minus exsecranda
sunt.]
[ 6 Quanquam in hoc facto est alius facilior exitus et expeditior intellectus,
ut non vere spiritum Samuelis excitatum a requie sua credamus, sed aliquod
phantasma et imaginariam illusionem diaboli machinationibus factam : quam
propterea scriptura nomine Samuelis appellat, quia solent imagines earum
92 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
(Lib. ii. c. 11), if that book deserves to be reckoned a genuine
piece of Augustine s he writes in this manner : "Whence from the
fact itself we may the more readily understand that this was not
the prophet Samuel, but that the devil, who transforms himself into
an angel of light, is considered in the phantastic form of Samuel.
This appears from his discourse, since he tells Saul, who was an
execrable man, * Thou and thy sons shall be with me. Surely, if
it had been the true Samuel who was here exhibited, he would
never have said that this unjust king would be a participator of his
reward after death 1 ." And most plainly in his book of Questions
on the old and new Testaments, in the seven and twentieth
question, he determines thus : " I deem it a most unworthy act
to repose belief in this narrative in the strict literal sense of it.
For how is it possible that a man holy in his birth and righteous
in his actions when alive should be dragged up by magic arts ? or,
if not dragged up, should have consented to them ? Either alter
native we can not without absurdity believe of a just man 2 ." To
say that the soul of the holy prophet was troubled by the spells of
witches, even Isidore himself detests as impious, as we see in Gra-
tian (26 qusest. 5. cap. Nee. Mirum.); and he says that this was
" a piece of Satan s jugglery 3 ." Augustine too, in his book de
Cura pro Mortuis (c. 15. 4 ), bears witness that many thought that it
rerum nominibus appellari quarum imagines sunt .... JSTon mirum est quod
Bcriptura dicit Samuelem visum, etiam si forte imago Samuelis apparuit ma-
chinamento ejus qui transfigurat se velut angelum lucis, et ministros suos
velut ministros justitise The treatise De vm. Dulcitii qusestionibus is the
fourth piece in T. vi. of the Benedictine edition, Paris, 1679.]
[ l Unde non hunc esse Samuelem ilium Prophetam per factum facilius
intelligitur, sed diabolus qui se transfert in angelum lucis, in phantasia
Samuelis consideretur. Quod ex sermoiiibus ejus recte dignoscitur, quoniam
funesto Sauli dicebat, Tu et filii tui mecum eritis. Etenim si verus hie
Samuel ostensus esset, nullo modo iniquum regem consortem sui merit! post
mortem diceret. This spurious work is to be found in the Appendix to Part
I. of T. in. of the Benedictine edition. The author is supposed to have been
an Irish monk, named Augustine.]
[ 2 Indignum facinus sestimo, si secundum verba historise commendetur
assensus. Quomodo enim fieri potuerat, ut arte magica attraheretur vir et
nativitate sanctus et vita? operibus Justus ? aut, si non attractus est, consensit ?
quod utrumque de viro justo credere absurdum est. This is also a spurious
piece ; it is the third in the Appendix referred to in the last note.]
[3 Porro autem hoc est pra3stigium Satanse. Decreti Pars Secund. Caus.
26. Qusest. 5. c. 14.]
[ 4 It is the nineteenth piece in Tom. vi. of the Benedictine edition.]
XIII.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 93
was not Samuel himself, but an evil spirit. And concerning the
book of Ecclesiasticus his expression is 5 : " But if this book bo
objected to on account of the Hebrew canon which does not give
it a place, what, shall we say of Moses ?" He concedes therefore
that this book is open to objections. So Aquinas (i. p. 89. 4. 8.
Art. ad 2 m .) gives three answers to this place : 1. That Samuel
appeared by a divine revelation. 2. Or, that the apparition was
produced by demons. 3. Or, that the authority of Ecclesiasticus
must not be admitted by reason that it is not esteemed by the
Hebrews a portion of the canonical scriptures.
CHAPTER XIV.
OF THE BOOKS OF MACCABEES.
BESIDES those common pleas, upon which we have already
said enough and answered sufficiently, our opponents adduce two
arguments to establish the authority of these books. The first is,
that they are placed by Clement in the canon of sacred scripture,
as appears in the last of the apostolic canons. The second is the
testimony of Augustine, in his City of God, (Lib. xvm. c. 36), which
is to this effect : " These books not the Jews, but the Church hold
to be canonical 6 ." A similar testimony is found also in his second
book against the Epistles of Gaudentius, cap. 23 7 . Hence they
conclude that these books are truly and properly canonical. I
proceed to return a brief answer to both allegations.
To the former I reply, in the first place, that we have already
shewn what should be thought of that book of apostolic canons, and
have stripped it of the name and authority of the apostles 8 . In
the second place, I am surprised that Bellarmine should choose to
avail himself of such a witness, whose evidence he must know
[5 Sed si liuic libro ex Hebrseorum, quia in eo non est, canone contra-
dicitur, quid dc Mosc dicturi sumus? Id. ibid.]
[ 6 The whole passage upon which Whitaker reasons in his reply is as
follows : Ab hoc tempore apud Judseos restituto templo non reges sed prin-
cipes fuerunt, usque ad Aristobulum : quorum supputatio temporum non in
scripturis sanctis, quse canonicse appellantur, sed in aliis invenitur ; in quibus
sunt et Machabeorum libri ; quos non Judcei, sed ecclesia pro canonicis habet
propter quorundam martyrum passiones vehernentes atque mirabiles.]
[? It is the last piece in T. ix. of the Benedictine edition, where this
passage stands. Lib. I. 38. p. 655.] [ 8 Supra, p. 42.]
94 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
very well to make much more against the cause which he defends
than it weighs in favour of these particular books. For, except
these books of Maccabees, that apostolical canon recites none of
all those pieces which our churches hold apocryphal, amongst the
canonical books of the old Testament. If, therefore, this aposto
lical canon hath made these books canonical, it hath certainly left
the rest in the class of apocryphal and spurious. Let the papists
consider, whether they would choose that these books should be
received on condition that all the others be excluded. Besides, in
this apostolical canon three books of Maccabees are recited, whereas
the papists allow only two of them to be canonical 1 . If then
they rely on the authority of these canons to prove the canonicity
of two books, what are they to determine concerning the third?
They must consequently give up the argument derived from these
canons, and Bellarmine hath acted discreetly in omitting it in the
edition published by Sartorius.
I come now to the testimonies of Augustine. And, first, to the
former from the City of God, Lib. xvm. c. 36. How Augustine
calls these and the other books canonical, by a certain common
use of that term in a loose sense, hath been already explained.
The Jews did not hold these books canonical ; for they were of
no account whatever amongst them. But the Christian church
may be said to hold them canonical, forasmuch as they are read in
the church, and held in some value, although they are not ad
mitted to an equal authority and credit with the rest. This we
may learn from Augustine himself, who writes thus in that very
same passage : " The calculation of which times is not to be found
in the sacred scriptures which are called canonical, but in others,
amongst which are also the books of Maccabees." Then follow the
words upon which the argument is founded. Now in these words
of Augustine two things present themselves which deserve notice.
The first, that these books are not, in truth and fact, sacred and
canonical. The other, that they are nevertheless held canonical
in the church, that is, read publicly, set forth, and esteemed of
great value in the church. Augustine subjoins the reason when
he says, "on account of the violent and admirable sufferings of
certain martyrs." Does he not in these words sufficiently shew
that Christians were led to ascribe so much importance to these
books on this account, because in them mention was made of cer-
[* There is some reason for believing the words MaKKaflatav rpia to be an
interpolation. See Cosin s Scholast. Hist. p. 30. Beverege s Annotations,
pp. 5, 39, and Gibbings s Roman Forgeries, pp. 113, 114.]
XIV.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 95
tain martyrs who fell in the cause of religion with the utmost
fortitude and constancy? On this account Nazianzen hath pro
nounced a most beautiful panegyric upon that mother and her
seven sons 2 . But in what sense can it be said that a book is
held canonical on account of this or that ? For a book which
is truly canonical is to be received absolutely and entirely, not on
account of this or that part or reason. Augustine says, in the City
of God, Lib. i. c. 20 : " Nor is it in vain, that nowhere in the
sacred canonical scriptures do we find any divine precept or per
mission to take away our own lives 3 ." In these books if not a
precept, at least a permission for a man to take his own life, is
to be detected. For in 1 Mace. chap. vi. Eleasar is praised for
voluntarily rushing upon death. And in 2 Mace. chap, xiv., the
fortitude of Razis is commended, who laid violent hands upon
himself. Yet Razis deserved no praise for his fortitude. For
this was to die cowardly rather than courageously, to put him
self voluntarily to death in order to escape from the hands of a
tyrant. The Holy Spirit judges not of valour by the same mea
sures as profane men, who extol Cato to the skies for committing
suicide lest he should fall into the power and hands of Caesar :
for he either feared, or could not bear to see him, or sought to
catch renown by an act of such prodigious horror. Thus he was
crushed and extinguished either by despair, or grief, or some other
perturbation of mind ; any of which motives are foreign from true
fortitude. Rightly, therefore, did Augustine deny those books to
be canonical, in which such a crime is narrated with some com
mendation by the authors.
The second testimony of Augustine occurs Lib. n. c. 23 ;
where also Augustine opposes our adversaries more than he favours
them. For he requires that " the book should be read and heard
with sobriety." Say you so ? What, I pray, do these words mean,
" not unprofitably, if done soberly?" Is there ground to fear that
scripture may be read unprofitably ? And what is this sobriety
which he demands in the perusal of these books ? Every thing,
indeed, should be read soberly ; no one doubts that ; and rash
ness should always be avoided. But if Augustine had meant that
sobriety which is everywhere required in all scriptures, he would
not have peculiarly prescribed that caution to the readers of this
[2 Inter Opp. Gregorii Nazianzen. T. i. p. 397. Colon. 1690.]
[ 3 Neque enim frustra in sanctis canonicis libris nusquam nobis divinitus
prseccptum permissumve reperitur, ut nobismet ipsis necem inferamus.]
96 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
book. The meaning, therefore, is, that there are some things in
the book which, if they be examined by the strict rule of faith,
cannot be defended, and therefore are not fit models for imitation ;
and that consequently the book requires to be read soberly. This
is moreover to be noted, that Augustine writes in that same place,
that Christ does not bear testimony to these books as his witnesses ;
which sufficiently shews that Augustine did not deem these books
truly canonical.
These matters being thus explained, let us now adduce our ar
guments against the authority of these books.
First, Jerome, in his catalogue of illustrious men 1 , and in his
second book against Pelagius 2 , says that Josephus was the author
of these books. Now Josephus was no prophet, and lived after
Christ and beyond the limits of the old Testament; for which
reasons he could not have written any book belonging to the
canon of the old Testament. Others, although they do not think
Josephus the author of these books, yet allow that the chronology
in them was supplied by Josephus ; in consequence of which the
books became apocryphal, because the dates in these books do
not agree. So the popish writer Annius 3 delivers his opinion,
upon the Second book of Philo s Chronology.
Secondly, these books are expressly styled apocryphal by
Gregory the Great, who was Pope of Rome, in his Morals, Lib. xix.
c. 16. These are his words : " We shall not transgress the due
bounds of order, if we produce a testimony upon this subject from
books, not indeed canonical, yet set forth for the edification of the
Church 4 ." Then he cites a passage from the Maccabees. There
fore, before Gregory, that is, within six hundred years after Christ,
the Church did not esteem the Books of Maccabees canonical.
[* Alius quoque liber ejus, qui inscribitur irepl avroKparopos Ao-yioyxo{5,
valdc elegans habetur, in quo et Machabseorum sunt digesta martyria. Cap.
xm. Opp. T. n. 837.]
[ 2 Unde et Josephus, Machabseorum scriptor historise, frangi et regi posse
dixit perturbationes animse, non eradieari. Ibid. 735. ^-The reader must bo
reminded, that neither this, nor the preceding passage, mean anything like
what Whitaker supposes ; the piece attributed to Josephus being, not the
books of Maccabees commonly so called, but a discourse or oration on the
Maccabees, which may be found in his works.]
[ 3 Josephus tempora adjiciens apocryphas reddidit. Annii Viteberg.
Antiquitt. ap. Ascenscium. 1512. Fol. ci.]
[ 4 De qua re non inordinate agimus, si ex libris non canonicis, sed tamen
ad sedificationem ecclesise editis, testimonium proferamus.]
XIV.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 97
Hence we see clearly what we should think of pope Innocent and
Augustine. They call these books canonical ; Gregory denies them
to be such. They and he, therefore, without doubt used that term
in different senses. The same judgment on these books is passed
by Eusebius (Lib. de Temp.) 5 , Richard of S. Victor. (Except. Lib. n.
c. 9) 6 , and Occam (3 Part. Dial. Tract, i. Lib. in. c. 16) 7 .
Thirdly, in 2 Mace. chap, xii., Judas MaccabsBus is praised for
offering sacrifice for the dead. Whereas he really deserved no praise
on that account, since God had commanded the making of no such
sacrifice. Now, whatever is done in religious service without divine
precept, is displeasing to God, and deserves not praise, but blame ; and
all sorts of will-worship were ever condemned in scripture. But upon
this whole matter and argument we shall have to speak hereafter.
Fourthly, that sacrifice was offered for men who had brought
themselves under the guilt and pollution of idolatry and sacrilege,
and had perished in that crime, as we read in the twelfth chapter.
For the soldiers of Judas had plundered some things consecrated
to the Jamnite idols, and had hidden these offerings under their
clothes ; which, when they were slain, were discovered under their
vesture. And this author says it was a clear case that they had
fallen on account of that crime. Now the papists themselves allow
that no sacrifice should be offered for persons guilty of such idolatry
and sacrilege : for this was a mortal sin ; and they tell us them
selves that for those who are certainly in mortal sin, as the author
affirms these men to have been, no sacrifice should be made. For
as to the pretence which Bellarmine has borrowed from Lyra,
that Judas piously supposed that they had repented of their sin in
the very article of death not to mention that it rests wholly upon
a dim surmise, yet, however probable it may have been that they
had grieved in death for their offence, a public sacrifice should
never have been offered for persons of this sort, who had polluted
themselves with idolatry, unless there were certain proof of their
true repentance^
[ 3 Machabseorum Historia hinc supputat regnum Grsecorum. Verum hi
libri inter divinas scripturas non recipiuntur. P. 348, ed. Majo. et Zohrab.
Mediol. 1818.]
[ 6 Alii non habentur in canone, tamen leguntur. Hi sunt Libri
Machabseorum. Deinde sanctorum patrum scripta, &c. Opp. Ven. 1592.
p. 331.]
[* Secundum Hieronymum .... Libri .... Machabseorum .... non sunt
recipiendi ad confirmandum aliquid in fide. Dialog. Guil. Ockam. Lugd.
1495. Fol. ccxii. 2.]
fj
[WHITAKER.]
98 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
Fifthly, the Holy Spirit is not accustomed to epitomize the
history of a profane author. But the Second Book of Maccabees,
as we read in chap, ii., is a contraction of the five volumes of Jason
of Cyrene, comprising in one little book what Jason had minutely
detailed in five. Who that Jason was is uncertain. A prophet he
was not : that no one ever said, or could say. Consequently this
synopsis of Jason s history, composed in such a manner, cannot be
counted part of the canonical scriptures.
Sixthly, in 2 Mace. chap. ii. we have a long narrative about the
sacred fire, the ark, the tabernacle, and the altar, which are said
there to have been hidden in a certain mountain and laid up by
Jeremiah. Now there is not a word of all this in Jeremiah himself.
And this author adds, that God had promised that he would shew
them, when he had collected the people. But, after the Babylonian
captivity, the Jews neither had nor found that ark, that tabernacle,
nor that altar, nor did God, after that event, shew these things to
any one. The papists object, that this is not to be understood of
the return under Cyrus, when that remnant of the Jews was col
lected, but of the advent of Christ, when the whole people shall be
collected, or of the conversion of the Jews a little before the end
of the world. But this is an utterly vain conjecture. For what
reason is there why these things should be shewn to the Jews at
such a period ? Or who does not feel the absurdity of so ridiculous
a figment ? However, if we consult the sacred history, we shall
find that this which is told of Jeremiah is contrary to the truth of
facts. For Jeremiah was in prison until the destruction of the city.
Jer. chaps, xxxvii. and xxxviii. : so that he could not take these
things away and hide them, while the city and temple stood ; nor
would the priests and princes have permitted it. But, after the
taking of the city, the Chaldeans fire the temple, plunder all its
valuables, whether gold, or silver, or brass, and carry them off with
themselves, as we read 2 Kings xxv., and in the last chapter of
Jeremiah. Jeremiah, therefore, had no opportunity of taking away
the ark of the Lord, and the altar of incense, which were overlaid
and covered entirely within and without with pure gold, Exod. xxv.
11. Besides, where are those records of Jeremiah to be found,
which are mentioned in the beginning of this chapter ?
Seventhly, there are many things in these books irreconcileable
and contradictory, such as the following examples which I shall
proceed to specify. In the first place, these books are not agreed
about the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, who was a most bitter enemy
XIV.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 99
of the Jews. For in 1 Mace. vi. 8 and 16, Antiochus is said to
have died of mental anguish upon the receipt of evil tidings, and to
have died at Babylon in his bed; at which time also he gave his
son in charge to Philip, whom he set over the kingdom. But in
2 Mace. i. 16, he is beheaded and cut in pieces in the temple of
Nana3a. So that we have now been told of two deaths of An
tiochus, since the manner of dying on these two occasions is different.
But this author tells us further of a third death of the same man
Antiochus, 2 Mace. chap, ix ; where he writes that he died far away
in the mountains of an internal pain in the bowels, out of which
worms were seen to crawl, and a horrible stench issued through
almost the whole army. One man could not have died so many
and such different deaths. The papists however set up some pre
tences. Canus says (Lib. n. cap. 11 ad quartum) that it is not the
same Antiochus. But the history itself refutes him at once ; and
Bellarmine was compelled to allow that the person meant was one
and the same. He endeavours to reconcile the accounts thus :
Antiochus lost his army in the temple of Nana3a, on the road he
fell from his chariot, afterwards he was carried to Babylon and
breathed his last. They confess therefore that Antiochus died at
Babylon, as is related in the first book : and, indeed, the first book
deserves more credit than the second. Now read what is related
in the second book concerning the death of Antiochus in the places
already cited. In chap. i. we read, that the leader himself was
stoned by the priests, and cut in pieces, and his head thrown out
to those who were outside. Now this leader is called Antiochus.
Antiochus, therefore, perished in this temple, unless a man who
hath been stoned, and cut to pieces, and beheaded, can escape alive.
Let us now go on to chap. ix. There we shall find that this
murderer and blasphemer, whilst in a transport of fury he was
marching from Persia towards Jerusalem, in a remote and moun
tainous region exchanged a miserable life for a deplorable death.
If he died at Babylon, he did not die in the country, nor in a
mountainous region. Nor can both narratives possibly be true.
In the next place, Judas is said, 1 Mace. ix. 3, to have been
slain in the year 152 of the reign of the Seleucida3. But in 2
Mace. i. 10 he writes in the year 188 1 letters to Aristobulus the
master of Ptolemy, that is, 36 years after his death.
I 1 In the common text indeed the date stands thus : but one of Mr Par
son s MSS. reads Teo-o-apaKoo-rov for oySoT/Kooroi). The difference is very
slight between par) and prf : and the latter doubtless is the true reading.
72
100 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
In the third place, Judas is said, 1 Mace. iv. 36, to have purified
the temple before the death of Antiochus, after Lysias had been
routed. But in 2 Mace, at the commencement of chap. x. this
purification of the temple is said to have been made after the
death of Antiochus. For it is the same purification, as our adver
saries allow.
In the fourth place, according to 2 Mace, x., Antiochus
Eupator, the son of Epiphanes, upon his accession to the throne,
confided the administration of affairs to Lysias. But, according to
1 Mace, vi., Lysias was long before in charge of that administration,
and educated king Antiochus, and gave him the name of Eupator.
Eighthly, the second book shews that it is written by a human
spirit. For, in the first place, at the end of the book the author
begs pardon of his readers, which is altogether alien from the Holy
Ghost ; since he always writes the truth, and writes it as it ought
to be written, erring neither in the matter nor in the manner, and
standing in no need of our indulgence.
They object that Paul used a similar excuse, when he con
fesses himself to have been "rude in speech," 2 Cor. xi. 6. I
reply : Paul never excused himself for writing poorly or slen
derly, or accomplishing less than he proposed. But this author
acknowledges the poorness and slenderness of his composition ; and
therefore, impelled by the sense of his own weakness, could not
help imploring the humane indulgence of his readers. Paul never
did this, nor any prophet or apostle. For, as to Paul s calling
himself rude in speech, (iSuoriyv \oyw), it is spoken in the sense
and style of the false apostles, who, puffed up with a certain empty
shew of eloquence, despised the apostle as rude and unskilful in
discourse. In those words, therefore, he did not describe himself
such as he really was, but such as he was represented by certain
false apostles. For the apostle was lacking in no commendable
part of true, simple, holy and divine eloquence, fit for so great a
For had the letter been written after 170, it would have been dated from the
era of Liberty, 1 Mace. xiii. 14. Still the difficulty remains, how an event
could be spoken of as passed in 148, which the first book of Maccabees
(vi. 14) tells us did not occur till 149. But Basnage (Hist, of the Jews, B. n.
c. 1. 20) long ago observed, that the years are counted differently in the
two books of Maccabees. The first, following the Jewish mode, begins the
year in March: the second in September. Thus the first makes Eupator
declare war in 150, while the second dates the same event in 149. I wonder
that Valckenaer did not remember this. See his dissertation de Aristobulo
Judceo, pp. 40, 41.]
XIV.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 101
teacher and apostle : but, because these pretenders called him
i^iMTqv \6yw, he acknowledges that, in their way of thinking, and
judged by their model and standard, he was an iSicorrjs. For this
is that eloquence which he calls "wisdom of words" (o-ocpiav
\oyov), 1 Cor. i. 17, and " words which man s wisdom teacheth"
(SiSctKTOvs avOpwTrivrjs cro0/a9 \6yovs), 1 Cor. ii. 13, and " excel
lency of speech" (uTrepo^v \oyov), 1 Cor. ii. 1 ; and which St Peter
calls " cunningly-devised fables" (aecrvcpia-fjievous fjivOous), 2 Pet.
i. 16. So CEcumenius interprets the apostle : Aoyov \eyei TO
eyyeyv/jii acrOai -rrj eXXyviKy vo(f)ia. "He means by speech the
being exercised in the wisdom of the Greeks." To a similar
purpose Aquinas upon that place : " Because the apostle pro
posed the faith plainly and openly, therefore they said that he was
rude in speech 1 ." So Lyra : " He says this to refute the saying
of the false apostles, who despised his doctrine, because he spoke
plainly and coarsely. Therefore he tells them that he did this
not from lack of knowledge, but because, as times then were, it
was not expedient for the Corinthians to have subtle questions
preached to them 2 ." The same is the opinion concerning this
place expressed by Catharinus archbishop of Campsa : " I do
not think," says he, " that Paul confesses himself to have been
really rude in speech, since he was an excellent preacher. But he
seemed so to those according to whose opinions he is speaking,
because his style had a spiritual simplicity, and was not redolent
of their secular and affected eloquence 3 ." For what Canus says,
(Lib. n. c. 11, on the fourth head,) " There is no reason why
the Holy Ghost should not assist an author who yet speaks modestly
in a human manner 4 ," is an insult to the Holy Spirit. The Holy
Spirit ever teaches us modesty ; but meanwhile ever speaks and
t 1 Apostolus proposuit eis fidem non in subtilitate sermonis, sed
plane et aperte ; ideo isti dicebant eum imperitum esse sermone. In 2 Cor. xi.
Lect. 2. Comm. p. 140. Ant. 1569.]
[ 2 Hoc dicit ad repellendum dictum pseudapostolorum, qui contem-
nebant ejus doctrinam, eo quod plana et grossa dicebat : ideo dicit, quod hoc
non ex defectu scientise, sed quod non expediebat Corinthiis pro tune subtilia
prsedicari. Biblia cum Gloss. Lyr. P. vi. p. 74. Lugd. 1520.]
[ 3 Non puto Paulum se fateri esse imperitum sermone, cum esset prec-
dicator eximius : sed ita illis videbatur ad quorum opinionem loquitur ; quia
sermo ejus habebat simplicitatem spiritualem, et non secularem illam affec-
tatam redolebat eloquentiam. Comm. in Paul. Epp. p. 232. Paris. 1566.]
[ 4 Nihil impedit ut Spiritus Sanctus scriptori assistat, qui in quibusdam
tamen, humano more, ex modestia loquitur.]
102 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
writes in a way that cannot be excelled by any one possessed of a
mere human spirit.
In the second place, this author speaks of the labour of making
this epitome as troublesome, and full of toil and difficulty, 2 Mace,
ii. But nothing is so difficult as to give any trouble to the Holy
Spirit : for the Holy Spirit is God, and labours under no human
weakness, and possesses infinite wisdom and power. Bellarmine,
indeed, objects, that, although God ever assists all the sacred
writers, yet the mode is different in the case of the historians from
what it is in the case of the prophets. The prophets had no other
trouble than that of dictating or writing, since God inspired them
with a knowledge of all that they were to write or dictate ; as we
read of Baruch writing things down from the lips of Jeremiah.
But the historians underwent much labour in searching and
thoroughly examining their subject, as Luke declares of himself,
chap. i. 3. I confess, in reply to this, that those who published
histories used diligence and industry : for the Holy Spirit does
not make men lazy, or slothful, or negligent. So Luke thoroughly
investigated, and knew accurately, and wrote most truly, all things
pertaining to his subject. But I absolutely deny that this writing
was troublesome or difficult to Luke, because nothing can be
troublesome to the Holy Spirit ; and Luke, when he wrote his
narrative, had the Holy Spirit as much as John when he wrote the
Apocalypse. " The Holy Ghost," as Ambrose says, " knows
nothing of slow efforts 1 ." Besides, how could the task of making
a short epitome of five books by Jason of Cyrene have been so
troublesome to the writers of the Maccabaean history ? Certainly
it is very easy to take out of another work what we choose, and
to omit what we choose not. The mind, the spirit, the genius, the
confession, the history are here all human.
CHAPTER XV.
OF THE BOOKS ALLOWED BY THE PAPISTS TO BE APOCRYPHAL.
WE have now spoken of those apocryphal books of the old
Testament, which the papists maintain to be canonical, and have
shewn them to be truly apocryphal. It remains now that we
[ l Vide supra, p. 38.]
XV.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 103
%
come to those apocryphal pieces of the old Testament which
are judged apocryphal by the papists themselves. Concerning
these there is no dispute between us and them. Nevertheless, I
will give a brief enumeration of them, so as to let you understand
what and of what sort they are. They are these : The third
and fourth books of Esdras : the third and fourth of Macca
bees ; whereof the third is found in some copies of the Bible, and
the fourth is mentioned by Athanasius in his Synopsis. To these
must be added the prayer of Manasseh, which is set after the
books of Chronicles : the 151st Psalm : the Appendix to the
book of Job in the Greek copies. There is also a little preface to
the Lamentations of Jeremiah, which is apocryphal. All these
are conceded to be apocryphal parts of the old Testament, because
not found in the Hebrew text, nor reckoned in the canon by any
council or pope. The third book of Maccabees, however, is
counted in the canon by Clement 2 , whom some suppose to have
collected the canons of the apostles, and who was a sovereign
pontiff; upon which difficulty they know not what to say.
The fourth book of Esdras, chap, vi., contains some fables
about the two fishes, Enoch and Leviathan, which are pretended to
be of such vast and prodigious magnitude, that no waters can contain
them. There are many things of the like stamp in these books,
fit to please and feed human curiosity, but discordant from all
sound and solid instruction. Such is the fiction in chap, iv., that
the souls of the righteous are kept in certain subterranean cells
until the number of the righteous shall be complete, and that then
they will no longer be able to retain them, even as the womb
cannot hold the foetus beyond the ninth month. Such also is the
story, chap, xiv, that the sacred books were lost in the captivity,
and restored to their integrity by Ezra, after a retirement of forty
days. For if these books had been lost, and written anew by
Ezra, their language would be Chaldee, and not Hebrew ; upon
which point we shall speak hereafter. But these are false and
incredible figments, rejected even by the papists, who yet generally
are wont to entertain such fables with wonder and veneration.
Indeed Genebrard, in his Chronology (anno mundi 3749), calls both
these books canonical ; which may well excite astonishment, as being
not only repugnant to right reason and the common opinion of the
doctors, but also made in contradiction to the authority of the
council of Trent. Genebrard, however, builds his cause upon the
[ 2 Vide supra, p. 94.]
104 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
same reasons by which Bellarmine, as noticed above, seeks to prove
the canonicity of Tobit, Wisdom, and the rest. Genebrard shews
that these books are cited by ancient fathers, and that the Church
is wont to read portions of them upon her sacred anniversaries.
All this is perfectly true, since in the third week of Pentecost, and
the commemorations of Martyrs, lessons are taken from the fourth
of Esdras. Therefore either this argument, which Bellarmine hath
hitherto used so often, does not prove the matter proposed, or these
books of Esdras must come in as canonical on the same plea : which
yet the Jesuits would be so far from granting, that they would
oppose it as grossly erroneous. However Genebrard does not
stand alone in this mistake. For John Benedictus also, in the be
ginning of his bible, places the third and fourth of Esdras in the
number of those books which, although not contained in the Hebrew
canon, are yet received by the Christian Church. In like manner
Eenatus Benedictus in his Stromata Biblica, Lib. i. c. 9, counts
the third and fourth of Esdras among the canonical books.
The prayer of Manasseh is extant neither in Hebrew, nor in
Greek ; and although it seems pious, yet I cannot understand how
that passage can be defended where he says, " Thou hast not ap
pointed repentance to the just, as to Abraham, and Isaac, and
Jacob, which have not sinned against thee ;" unless we suppose,
indeed, that this is only said comparatively. For they too had
sinned, and stood in need of repentance.
Psalm cli. is found in the Greek, but not in the Hebrew copies.
It contains thanks to God for the victory over Goliah, and was
translated by Apollinarius in his Metaphrase 1 . However it was
always esteemed apocryphal. The appendix to the Book of Job 2
is condemned by Jerome, as translated only out of the Syriac
tongue, and not found in the Hebrew, and because Job is there
said to have been the fourth from Esau, whereas he was of the
race of Uz, who was the son of Nahor. So Jerome in his Questions
and traditions upon Genesis 3 . In his Epistle to Evagrius, however,
(Qua3st. 126) he says that Job was more probably descended from
Esau, yet affirms that the Hebrews think otherwise.
All these the papists allow to be apocryphal ; and they may as
well add to them what we esteem apocryphal also. For the argu
ments, as you have already seen, are no less valid against the latter
than against the former. Hence too it appears evidently, that it is
t 1 Fabricius, Cod. Pseud. V. T. T. n. p. 907.]
[ 2 Ibid. p. 793.] [ 3 Hieronym. Opp. T. in. p. 339.]
XV.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 105
not everything that is read in the Latin bibles that can claim canon
ical authority, since many apocryphal pieces are found there. But
from this it arose that the apocrypha, being bound into one volume
with the canonical scriptures, obtained by degrees more and more
credit and authority, and at last were esteemed even canonical
themselves.
CHAPTER XVI.
OF THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
IT follows that, in the next place, we should speak of the books
of the new Testament. But I will omit this portion of the subject,
inasmuch as it involves no controversy between us and the papists.
For we acknowledge without any exception those same books as
they judge to be canonical. Those books of the new Testament
which the council of Trent hath enumerated, those all, and those
only, our church receives. If Luther, or some of Luther s followers,
have thought or written otherwise concerning some of them, as the
Epistle of James or that of Jude, or some other pieces, they must
answer for themselves : their opinions are no concern of ours, nor
is it incumbent upon us to defend them, since we are, in this
respect, no followers of Luther, and submit to the direction of
better reason. However the persons just mentioned can produce
in their behalf the judgment and example of the ancient Christian
Church and of certain fathers. For it is sufficiently known, that in
old times some Christian churches and fathers, distinguished for their
piety and their learning, removed from the canon all those books
which Luther called in question. There is, therefore, no just cause
why our adversaries should inveigh so vehemently and with such
acrimony against Luther on this account, since he hath erred no
more in this respect than several catholic churches and some holy
fathers formerly, and even some very distinguished papists at the
present day. Cajetan openly rejects all the following : the
Epistle of James, the second of Peter, the second and third of
John, the Epistle of Jude, the Epistle to the Hebrews (which
Luther certainly never disputed), the history of the woman taken
in adultery, John viii., the last chapter of Mark, and throughout
the gospels and other books several passages about which it never
entered into the mind of Luther to entertain a doubt. However
106 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
all who doubted about some canonical book were not, in former
times, therefore reputed heretics. But I will not pursue this
subject farther, since it hath no connexion with our cause. Let
them attack others, but not from henceforth molest us.
Thus, then, we doubt not of the authority of any book of the
new Testament, nor indeed of the author of any, save only the
Epistle to the Hebrews. That this epistle is canonical, we all
concede in the fullest sense ; but it is not equally clear that
it was written by the apostle Paul. Some judge it to be Paul s,
others think otherwise. This was a questionable point in the
earliest period of the Church. Eusebius (Lib. HI. c. 3) writes 1
that the church of Rome denied this Epistle to be Paul s; but
now that church hath changed its opinion, and attributes the
authorship to Paul. Jerome, in his Catalogue under the Article
PAUL, hath these words : " The Epistle called that to the He
brews is not thought to be his, on account of the difference
of the style and diction 2 ." He writes to the same effect in his
Epistle to Paulinus, and upon the 13th chapter of Jeremiah.
Tertullian ascribes it to Barnabas 3 . Some to Luke the Evangelist,
as Jerome testifies. So Caius, an ancient and learned writer,
enumerates no more than thirteen epistles of Paul, as Jerome tells
us in the Catalogue. " In the same volume," says he, " enume
rating only thirteen epistles of Paul, he says that the fourteenth,
which is inscribed to the Hebrews, is not his. Yea, and amongst
the Romans, even to this day, it is not looked upon as the work
of the Apostle Paul 4 ." Eusebius also hath mentioned this Caius,
Lib. vi. c. 16. Hence it appears clearly, that many in former
times thought this epistle not to have been written by Paul.
But now, if I were to seek to mention all who attribute this
epistle to the apostle Paul, I should never find an end. Jerome,
in his epistle to Dardanus, says, that almost all the Greek authors
affirm it to be Paul s 5 ; and of this mind is Origen (in Eusebius,
Lib. vi. c. 18), Clemens Alexandrinus (in Eusebius, Lib. vi. c. 11),
[* on ye p.r)V rives ijQfTiJKao-i rrjv Trpos E/3pa/oi&gt;s, TTpos rrjs Pco/LtaiW eKK\rj-
&lt;rias cos ^ TlavXov ovcrav avrr^v avriXeyca-Qai &lt;frr)cravTS, ov diKaiov ayvofiv.
Eccl. Hist. T. i. pp. 189, 190. ed. Heinrich.]
[ 2 Epistola quse fertur ad Hebrseos non ejus creditur, propter styli ser-
monisque dissonantiam. Opp. T. n. p. 823.]
[ 3 De Pudicitia. c. 20. Extat enim et Barnabse titulus ad Hebrseos.]
[ 4 Et in eodem volumine epistolas quoque Pauli tredecim tantum enume-
rans, decimam quartam, quse fertur ad Hebrseos, dicit ejus non esse. Sed
et apud Romanos usque hodie quasi Pauli Apostoli non habetur. c. 59.
T. II. p. 886.] [ 5 T. n. p. 608, alias Ep. 129.]
XVI. J QUESTION THE FIRST. 107
Eusebius himself (Lib. n. c. 3), the council of Laodicea (c. 59) 6 ,
Athanasius, in the Synopsis and elsewhere, Irenseus 7 , Cyril
(Thesaur. Lib. xn. c. 9), Chrysostom upon the epistle, and Na-
zianzen in many places. Theophylact wonders at the impudence
of those who deny it. Damascene cites a testimony from it as a
work of Paul s 8 . Even the more celebrated of the Latins hold the
same language. Augustine, de Doctr. Christ. Lib. n. c. 8, and
many other places. Ambrose wrote commentaries upon this, as
one of Paul s epistles, and calls it a work of Paul s, in commenting
upon Psalm cxix. 9 So also Gregory the Great, Moral. Lib. v.
cap. 3. And the apostle Peter seems to testify that this is an
epistle of Paul s, in these words, 2 Pet. iii. 15, " As our brother
Paul hath written to you." Now they were Hebrews : for it was
to Hebrews that Peter wrote, as is plain from the inscription of
his first epistle ; and it was to the same persons that the second
also was sent, since he says, " This second epistle I now write unto
you." ch. iii. 1.
This, however, I leave to the judgment of the reader, with
out determining anything absolutely one way or other. I know
that some allege reasons to shew that this cannot possibly be an
epistle of Paul s. But I perceive that these have been opposed
and refuted by others, as Illyricus, Hyperius, &c. We need not
be very earnest in this debate. It is not a matter of necessity,
and the question may well be left in doubt, provided that, in the
meanwhile, the authority of the epistle be allowed to remain clear
and uncontested. Jerome, in his epistle to Dardanus, hath sagely
reminded us, that it makes no great matter whose it is, " since it
is certainly the work of an ecclesiastical man, and is continually
used every day in the reading of the churches 10 ." Gregory, in
like manner, wrote excellently well of the author of the book of Job,
when, in the preface to his commentary upon that book, cap. 10,
he answers the inquiries put to him upon that subject : " Who
wrote these things, it is superfluous to ask, if only we believe
faithfully that the Holy Spirit was the author of the book. He
himself, therefore, wrote these things, since he dictated them to be
[6 Mansi, T. n. p. 574.]
[1 It seems a mistake to say that Irenseus cites this epistle as Paul s.
Stephen Gobar (apud Photium cod. ccxxn. p. 904) affirms the contrary.]
[ 8 De fide Orthodox. Lib. iv. c. 17. T. i. p. 283.]
[ 9 See also in Job. Lib. xvn. c. 23, p. 546, E.]
[ 10 Et nihil interesse cujus sit, quum ecclesiastic! viri sit, et quotidie eccle-
siarum lectione celebretur. ut supra, p. 106. n. 5.]
108 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
written. If we read the words in some letter which we had gotten
from some great man, and raised the question, what pen they were
written with ; it would surely be thought ridiculous that we should
be curious not to know the author and understand his meaning, but
discover what sort of pen it was with which their characters were
traced 1 ." Since, then, we perceive that the Holy Ghost is the
author of this epistle, it is superfluous to inquire so anxiously
and curiously about the pen, and rash to affirm anything without
certain evidence.
Apocryphal, by the confession and in the opinion of all, are
those numerous spurious gospels under the names of Thomas,
Andrew, Nicodemus, the JSazarenes, &c., whereof we read in Gra-
tian, Dist. 15. c. Sancta Romana. These are not now extant,
although they were formerly read and highly esteemed by many.
But the Lord provided for his church that, while the true gospels
were constantly preserved, those fictitious ones should perish utterly.
Besides, that piece which goes about under the title of the Epistle
to the Laodiceans, is likewise apocryphal ; of which Jerome writes
in the catalogue under the article PAUL : " Some read the epistle to
the Laodiceans, but it is universally exploded 2 ." And the fathers of
the second Nicene council, Act. 6, say : " Amongst the epistles of
the apostle there is one which goes under the title of that to the
Laodiceans, which our fathers have rejected as spurious 3 ." I know
not whence the notion of such an epistle originated, if it were not
from the error and fault of the Latin version, Coloss. iv. 16. For
the Vulgate reads there, et ilia quce est Laodicensium, as if there
had been some epistle written to the Laodiceans by Paul. The
Latin words are ambiguous, and may be understood in such a sense.
But the Greek text immediately removes this suspicion, KOL TY\V e/c
AaoSiKeias. Therefore this epistle which Paul here mentions,
whatever it was, was not written to the Laodiceans, but from the
Laodiceans; which all the Greek expositors have observed.
[ x Quis hoc scripserit supervacanee quseritur, cum tamen auctor libri
Spiritus Sanctus fideliter credatur. Ipse igitur hsec scripsit, qui hscc scri-
benda dictavit. Si magni cujusdam viri susceptis epistolis legeremus verba,
eaque quo calamo essent scripta qusereremus ; ridiculum profecto esset, si
non epistolarum auctoritatem scire, sensumque cognoscere, sed quali calamo
earum verba impressa fuerint, indagare studeremus. Opp. T. i. p. 7. Paris.
1701.]
[ 2 Legunt quidam ad Laodicenos, sed ab omnibus exploditur. T. n. p. 823.]
[ 3 Kcu yap rov fltiov ATroo-rdAov Trpbs AaoSt/ceTs (pepcrai, TrXao-r?) CTTI(TTO\T) . . .
TJV ol Trarepts r^w aTredo/a/Liacrcu/. Concil. Labb. et Cossart. T. VII. p. 475.]
XVI.] QUESTION THE FIRST. 109
There is also a book of Hermas, called the Shepherd, which
Jerome speaks of in the catalogue, under the article HERMAS.
The papists concede this also to be apocryphal, yet so as to be
capable of being made and adjudged to be canonical by the church.
For so Stapleton writes of this book, Doctrinal. Princip. Lib. ix. cap.
14, and he says as much of the Clementine Constitutions. Nor
should this surprise us, since Gratian, upon the foot of a passage
from Augustine (which, however, he hath most shamefully and
foully corrupted), asserts that the decretal epistles are to be
reckoned a part of the canonical scriptures, Dist. 19 4 . Which in
tolerable falsification of this compiler Alphonsus de Castro (contra
User. Lib. i. c. 2), and Andradius (Def. Trident. Lib. in.) acknow
ledge and condemn. Yet there are still some papists who persist
in the same impudent blasphemy. For one Alphonsus de Guerero
adduces the evidence of this place to prove that the decretal epistles
of the Roman pontiffs are equal to the sacred scriptures ; whose
words stand as follows in the Thesaurus Christianas Religionis, cap.
3. Num. 5 : " Also decretal epistles have the force of authority,
and decretal epistles are reckoned part of the canonical scriptures 5 ."
Also John Turrecremata, (de Ecclesia. Lib. iv. p. 2. c. 9), and Ca-
jetan, in his book de Primatu Papce, make use of this corrupt place
in Gratian to prove the authority and primacy of the Roman pon
tiffs. Thus the volume of the new Testament will be augmented by
a glorious accession, if all the decretal letters of the popes are to be
counted amongst the sacred scriptures. But look yourselves at the
passage in Augustine, de Doctr. Christ. Lib. n. c. 8, and see there
the manifest ignorance or manifest fraud of Gratian. For Augus
tine says not a word of decretal epistles, or Roman pontiffs, and the
scope of the whole place is directed quite another way.
But we have now finished the first question which we proposed
concerning the canonical books.
[ 4 c. vi. In Canonicls. Where the Roman editors, having cited the pas
sage as it really stands in Augustine, very fairly add : "-Quse quidem B.
Augustim sententia non ad decretales Romanorum pontificias, sed ad cano-
nicas et sacras scripturas referenda est."]
[ 5 Et decretales epistolce vim auctoritatis habent, et in canonicis scrip-
turis decretales epistolee connumerantur, Ap. Roccaberti, Bibl. Max. Pontif.
T. IT. p. 15. Romcc, 1698.]
THE FIRST CONTROVERSY.
QUESTION II.
OF THE AUTHENTIC EDITION OF THE SCRIPTURES.
CHAPTER I.
THE STATE OF THE QUESTION.
THE first point raised in our inquiry concerning the duty of
searching the scriptures, as between us and the papists, hath now
been sufficiently explained. For we have found what are the books
of holy scripture which we are commanded to search, and have re
jected the error of our adversaries, who seek to introduce certain
apocryphal books into the canon. Wherein, indeed, no one can
fail to perceive their manifest unreasonableness, and the utter hope
lessness of their cause. For, in the first place, not content with
those books which are truly canonical and inspired, those books
in which the Lord hath desired us to seek his will, they add to this
list of sacred pieces many others of a foreign and wholly hetero
geneous character. Farther still, they cannot think that even
with all this they have enough, but join to these scriptures even
unwritten traditions also ; that so they may be enabled to prove
by their spurious scriptures and traditions those dogmas of which
they can find no vestige in the genuine scriptures. On the other
hand, we have already shewn these books to be apocryphal, and I
shall presently speak of their traditions in the proper place. Order
requires that we should now proceed to the second question of our
controversy, which contains two divisions. The first is concerning
the authentic edition of the scriptures : the second, concerning the
versions of scripture and sacred rites in the vulgar tongue. We
shall handle each in its proper order.
Rightly to understand the state of this question, we must re
member what the council of Trent hath enjoined upon this subject ;
which synod we read prescribing in the second decree of its fourth
QUESTION THE SECOND. Ill
session, that " the old Latin vulgate edition should be held for
authentic in public lectures, disputations, preachings, and expositions,
and that no man shall dare or presume to reject it under any pre
text whatsoever 1 ." Consequently, the point to be decided in this
question is, whether this Latin version, commonly styled the vulgate,
is the authentic edition of scripture, or not rather the Hebrew text
in the old Testament, and the Greek in the new. Our opponents
determine the Latin to be authentic, and so the council of Trent
hath denned it. So Melchior Canus (Lib. n. c. 13) interprets
this decree, and deduces from it four conclusions. The first is,
that the old vulgate edition must be retained by the faithful in all
points which pertain to faith and morals : the second, that all
questions concerning faith or morals must be determined by this
Latin edition : the third, that we must not in a disputation ap
peal to the Hebrew or Greek copies : the fourth, that, in matters
of faith or morals, the Latin copies are not to be corrected from the
Hebrew or Greek. In like manner our countrymen the Rhemists,
in the preface to their version of the new Testament, run out into a
long panegyric upon this Latin edition, and contend for its superi
ority not only to all other Latin versions, but even to the Greek
itself which is the original and prototype. Lindanus, in the first
book of his treatise de optima genere interpretandi, prefers the
Latin edition to the Hebrew and Greek ; and Andradius (Defens.
Trident. Lib. iv.) declares it intolerable that any one should be per
mitted to despise the authority of that edition which is used by the
church, or to appeal freely to the Hebrew and Greek.
Although, therefore, our adversaries do not condemn the He
brew and Greek originals, yet they conclude that not these
originals, but the vulgate Latin edition is the authentic text of
scripture. Our churches, on the contrary, determine that this
Latin edition is very generally and miserably corrupt, is false
and not authentic ; and that the Hebrew of the old Testament,
and the Greek of the new, is the sincere and authentic scripture
of God ; and that, consequently, all questions are to be deter
mined by these originals, and versions only so far approved as
they agree with these originals. Consequently, we and our ad
versaries maintain opinions manifestly contradictory.
[ l Sancrosancta synodus statuit et declarat, ut hsec ipsa vetus Vul-
gata editio, qua? longo tot seculorum usu in ipsa- ecclesia probata est, in
publicis lectionibus, disputationibus, pnedicationibus, et expositionibus pro
authentica habeatur, et ut nemo illam rejicere quoyis prsetextu audeat vel
prscsumat. p. 20. Lips. 1837.]
112 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
It behoves me to proceed in this question in such a course
as to say something, first, of the Hebrew edition of the old
Testament ; secondly, of the Greek of the new ; thirdly, of this
Latin vulgate itself. Upon this last point I shall shew that it
is corrupt, and therefore to be corrected and judged of by the
standard of the original text, which is, indeed, the grand hinge
upon which this whole controversy turns. The former matters
therefore I shall dispatch briefly, so as to come without delay
to the main subject.
CHAPTER II.
OF THE HEBREW EDITION.
THE Hebrew is the most ancient of all languages, and was that
which alone prevailed in the world before the deluge and the erec
tion of the Tower of Babel. For it was this that Adam used, and
all men before the flood, as is manifest from the scriptures, and as
the Fathers testify. So Augustine in his book de Mirabilibus
Scripturce (cap. 9) : " Whereas, up to that time, the whole race of
all men were of one language, he divided their tongues into different
terms 1 ." And, in his City of God (Lib. xvi. c. 4): "Time was
when all had one and the same language 2 ." This is likewise con
firmed by that testimony of the Sybil, which Josephus hath set
down, Antiquit. Lib. i. c. 6 : " When all men were of one lan
guage, some of them built a high tower, as if they would thereby
ascend to heaven ; but the gods sent storms of wind, and overthrew
the tower, and gave every one his peculiar language 3 ." Which
[! Cum ad illud tempus esset unius linguse cunctus populus, universorum
lingulas in diversa verba divisit.]
[ 2 Cum ergo in suis linguis istse gentes fuisse referantur, redit tamen ad
illud tempus narrator, quando una lingua omnium fuit.]
[3 HdvT(ov 6fj,o&lt;pcdva&gt;v ovT(t&gt;v dv6p&lt;o7TG)v, Trvpyov (0Kod6[j.r)(rdv rives v\lsr)\6-
TCITOV, (os CTTI TOV ovpavov dvaj3r]cr6p.voi di avrov of de 6fo\ dvefj,ovs fTwrfp,-
^avTs dverpe^dv TOV Trvpyov, KOI Idiav e/eaerrop (pavrjv cdaxav. Lib. I. C. 4.
. 3. ed. Richter. Lips. 1826. The lines, as given by Opsopseus, are these :
Kat jSouXovr dvaffiv els ovpavov daTepoevra,
AvTiKa dQdvaTOL ...... &gt;
Tlvev/j.a(riv.
Sibyll. Orac. Lib. HI. p. 223. edit. Opsop. Paris. 1599.]
II.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 113
testimony of that aged prophetess is not to be rejected, since it
agrees with the scriptures. It was, therefore, no slight error of
Philastrius (Ha3ret. c. 106) to contend that there were many lan
guages from the beginning, and to stigmatize as heretical the opi
nion that there was but one language before the building of Babel.
For so the scripture tells us plainly, Gen. xi. 1 : " The whole earth
was of one language and one speech." Now Augustine, in his City
of God (Lib. xvi. c. 11) tells us, that this common language re
mained in the family of Heber 4 , and was thence called Hebrew ;
which is also expressly affirmed by Eucherius upon Genesis (Lib. n.
c. 2) : " At that time, wherein a diversity of languages was pro
duced, the former tongue retained its place in the family of Heber
alone 5 ." Thus, whilst all other races were punished with a sudden
change of dialect, Heber preserved his ancient language, and trans
mitted it to his posterity, not all of them indeed, but that line from
which Abraham descended. And, along with the language, the
pure religion also was propagated in the family of Abraham. Fur
thermore, in that perturbation and confusion of tongues which took
place at Babel, the Hebrew was the mother of the rest. For the
others are generally but dialects and varieties of this, some more
closely allied and bearing a greater resemblance to their parent,
while others have deflected farther from the primitive stock : but
all the rest are derived from it. " We may perceive," says
Jerome, on Zephaniah, chap. iii. " that the Hebrew language is the
mother of all languages 6 ." He gives there one example in proof,
the identity of the Hebrew Nugei with the Latin Nugce.
In this language, which the faithful after that time preserved
incorrupt in one family, the old Testament was published, as all
unanimously agree. Upon this subject Jerome thus writes in his
[ 4 Non defuit domus Heber, ubi ea quse antea fuit omnium lingua re-
maneret.]
[ 5 Eo tempore quando linguarum facta est varietas, in sola domo Heber
quse antea fuit lingua commansit. c. 7. p. 61. These commentaries are falsely
attributed to Eucherius of Lyons, who flourished A. D. 434, as they make
citations from Gregory I. and Cassiodorus. They were published among
his works, Basil. 1531.]
[ 6 Ut nosse possimus, esse Hebraicam linguam omnium matricem. T. vr.
p. 730. The verse referred to is 18. But in \ftlJ which Jerome translates
nugas in its obsolete sense of mourners, the 3 is not radical but servile,
the mark of the Niphal participle from fTJP corresponding to the Sanscrit
wig.}
r -i 8
[WHITAKER.J
114 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
142nd Epistle : "All antiquity agrees to witness that the beginning
of speech and common discourse, and the whole substance of human
language, is the Hebrew tongue, in which the old Testament is
written 1 ." It is also certain that Moses is the earliest writer,
although some persons think otherwise, and allege certain names of
books which are found in the scriptures. These objections may be
easily answered ; but I shall not enter upon that subject as not per
taining to the matter in hand. God himself shewed the model and
method of writing, when he delivered the law, inscribed by his own
finger, to Moses. This is the opinion of Chrysostom (Opp. T. ir. p. 1.
Eton. 1612), and Theophylact (upon Matth. i.) ; and it is also em
braced by the Papists, as Hosius, in his Confessio Petrocoviensis,
cap. 15, and the Jesuit Schrock, in his 13 Thesis de Verbo Dei.
Augustine, indeed, (Civit. Dei. Lib. xv. c. 23,) 2 affirms it to be cer
tain that Enoch committed some things to writing, since Jude asserts
as much in his Epistle. But it does not appear that this is a fair
inference from Jude s expression : for Jude does not say, " Well
wrote Enoch;" but, "well prophesied," irpoe&lt;ptjreva. The
passage cited, therefore, is either some oral speech of Enoch s, or
else written by some other person. But we must not say that any
book written by Enoch was extant at the time when this epistle
was written : for if so, it would have been canonical. But the
Jews had no such book in their canon. It was Moses, therefore,
the greatest of the prophets, who wrote the first canonical book of
scripture ; after whom other prophets published several volumes.
Some wrote before the captivity, as Samuel, Nathan, Isaiah, Hosea,
and many more : some in the captivity, as Ezekiel and Daniel :
some for a space after the captivity, as Ezra, Haggai, Zechariah,
Malachi. These all wrote in Hebrew, except a few pieces which
we find composed by Daniel and Ezra in Chaldee. But the Chal-
dee tongue is near akin to the Hebrew, and was then a language
known to the church. Nor is this exception a matter of sufficient
moment to prevent Jerome from saying that the old Testament is
entirely written in Hebrew.
There are some, however, who imagine that the whole old
Testament perished in the captivity. This suspicion, perhaps, arose
[! Initium oris et communis eloquii, et hoc omne quod loquimur, He-
brseam linguam, qua vetus Testamentum scriptum est, universa antiquitas
tradidit Ep. 18. T. i. p. 49.]
[ 2 Scripsisse quidem nonnulla divina Enoch, ilium septimum ab Adam,
negare non possumus, cum hoc in epistola canonica Judas Apostolus dicat.]
II.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 115
from considering that, when the temple was burnt, all that was in
it must have been consumed in the same conflagration. Hence
they believe that the sacred volumes of scripture must have been
destroyed in the flames ; but that, after the captivity, Ezra, in
structed by the Holy Spirit, published these afresh, as it were
again recovered. In this opinion was Clemens Alexandrinus (Strom.
Lib. i.) 3 and Irenseus (Lib. in. c. 25), who writes thus : " In that
captivity of the people which took place under Nebuchadnezzar, the
scriptures being impaired, when, after the expiration of seventy
years, the Jews returned to their own land, and after that again in
the times of Artaxerxes, king of the Persians, God inspired Ezra,
who was of the tribe of Levi, to renew all the discourses of the
prophets, and restore to the people the law which had been given
them by Moses 4 ." Similar are the words of Leontius (de Sectis.
Act. 2) : " Ezra, coming to Jerusalem, and finding that all the
books had been burnt when the people were taken captive, is said
to have written down from memory those two and twenty books of
which we have given a list in the foregoing place 5 ." Isidorus (de
officiis), and Rabanus Maurus (de Inst. Cleric, c. 54) write to the
same effect. They affirm, therefore, two things : one, that the
whole sacred and canonical scripture perished in the Babylonian
captivity : the other, that it was restored to its integrity by Ezra,
instructed and inspired in a wonderful manner by the direct agency
of God.
But the falsehood of this opinion is manifest. For the pious
Jews had, no doubt, many copies of the scripture in their possession,
and could easily save them from that calamity. What man in his
senses will say that there was no copy of the scriptures beside that
in the temple ? Besides, if these books had been deposited in the
temple, would not either the priests or somebody else have been
[ 3 81 ov yivcrai ..... 6 ra&gt;v QeoirveiHTTav dvayv&lt;&gt;pi(Tp,os KOL d
XoyiW. P. 329, D. Morell. Paris. 1629. Compare also 342, B.]
[ 4 V rfj eVi Na^ou^oSoi oo-op ai^ftaXcocrta rov Xaou 8ia&lt;p6apeio-o&gt;v ro5i
ypa&lt;e3i/, Acal p-era e/SSo/z^Koi/ra err) rav lovSaiW dveXOovrav els rrjv -\wp av
aurroi/, TTira *v rols ^poi/oiff Apra^epgov TOV Tifpv&v j3a&lt;rtXea&gt;? evetrvevarcv
*Eo-pa TO) fepei CK TTJS (pvXrjs Aeiu, TOVS rS&gt;v TrpoyeyovoToov 7rpo&lt;pr)T&lt;nv Trai/ra?
dvarda(rdai Xoyovs 1 , KOL aTTOKaraa-T^crat r&lt;3 Xa&&amp;gt; TTJV 8ia Maxreeoff vop.o0&lt;riav.
P. 293. ed. Fevard. Par. 1675. The Greek is given by Eusebius, H. E. v. 8.]
[ 5 O 8e "Eo-Spas f\da&gt;v els TO. lepoo-oXvpa, KCU evpooz/ on irdvra /3t/3Xi a
770-ai/ KavQevTa, rjviK.a ^juaXcorio-^crai/, CITTO p.vrjfj.rjs Xeyerat crvyypdtyao-Qai TO.
KJ3 /3i/3Xia, ancp Iv rots ava&gt; dTrr)pi6p.r]&lt;Tdp,e6a. . 8. p. 632. ap. Gallandi Bibl.
V. P. T. xii. Venet. 1788.]
82
116 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cil.
able to rescue them from the flames? It is incredible that the
religious Jews should have been so unmindful of piety and religion
as to keep no copies whatever of the scriptures, whilst they lived
in Babylon, especially while they had such men among them as
Ezekiel and Daniel. But it is certain that they had many copies.
For even Antiochus himself could not utterly destroy them all,
though he set himself to do so with the utmost zeal and sedulity.
Hence it appears that there were everywhere a very great number
of copies ; and now the Babylonians made no such fierce assault upon
the sacred books. In accordance with what we might expect from
such premises, Ezra is simply said, Nehem. viii., to have brought
the book of Moses and read it. The books of Moses therefore,
and, in like manner, the other books of scripture, were preserved
safe in the captivity ; and we have now no other, but the very
same books of scripture of the old Testament as those which were
written by Moses and the rest of the prophets.
However, it is very possible that the books, which may have
been previously in some disorder, were corrected by Ezra, restored
to their proper places, and disposed according to some fixed plan,
as Hilary in his prologue affirms particularly of the Psalms. Per
haps, too, Ezra either changed or reformed the shapes and
figures of the letters. Jerome indeed, in his epistle to Paulinus,
maintains that " Ezra invented new forms for the letters after the
return from the captivity ; for that previously the Jews had used
the same characters as the Samaritans 1 ." Hence, if we credit Jerome,
Ezra introduced new forms of the letters, more elegant and easy
than those which were before in use, copied out the law in these
new characters, and left the old ones to the Samaritans. In con
formity with this statement, Jerome further tells us, upon Ezekiel
ix. 2 , that the last letter of the alphabet was formerly similar to the
Greek Tav, and that it still, in his time, retained that figure in the
Samaritan character; while the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet
has now quite another and different shape.
[ l Cerium est, Esdram scribam Legisque doctorem, post captam Hiero-
solymam .... alias literas repperisse, quibus nunc utiraur : cum ad illud
usque temp us iidem Samaritanorum et Hebreeorum characteres fuerint.]
[ a Antiquis Hebrseorum literis, quibus usque hodie utuntur Samaritani,
extrema Thau litera, crucis habet similitudinem. T. v. p. 96. The remark
was made by Origen before him : ra ap^ala o-rot^eia e/x^epes- e^e w TO Tav r&lt;5
rov a-ravpov xapaKTrjpi. Coins are still found which preserve the old cruciform
Phoenician Tau, though the Samaritan has ceased to bear that shape.]
II.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 117
But, though Jerome affirms that Ezra invented new characters,
he never says that he made everything new. He might very easily
copy and set forth the same ancient text in the new letters. We
must hold, therefore, that we have now those very ancient scrip
tures which Moses and the other prophets published, although we
have not, perhaps, precisely the same forms and shapes of the
letters.
CHAPTER III.
OF THE GREEK VERSION BY THE SEVENTY TRANSLATORS OF
THE HEBREW BOOKS.
THESE Hebrew books of sacred scripture were, of old, trans
lated into various languages, particularly into Chaldee and Greek.
The Chaldee paraphrase is generally allowed great credit and
authority, especially that of the Pentateuch which was made by
Onkelos 3 . The rest were turned into Chaldee by Jonathan and
Joseph, who lived a little before, or about the time of Christ 4 .
There were many Greek translations of scripture published by
various authors. But, without question, the noblest and most
famous of them all was that which was composed by the seventy-
two interpreters in Egypt, in compliance with the pious wishes of
Ptolemy Philadelphus. We may read large accounts of this Greek
version in Epiphanius (de Mensur. et Ponder. 5 ), Eusebius (Prseparat.
Evangel. Lib. vin. 6 ), Justin Martyr (Dial. c. Tryph. 7 ), besides many
others. Nay, there is still extant a book of Aristaeus, who pretends
to have been one of Ptolemy s body-guards, and gives a narrative
of the whole transaction. But Ludovicus Vives 8 (in Lib. xvni.
[ 3 It is printed in Buxtorfs Rabbinical Bible, Basil, 1719, and in the
Paris and London Polyglotts. Onkelos s history is involved in great obscu
rity. The best book on the subject is perhaps Luzzato s Philoxemis, Vienna,
1830.]
[ 4 Jonathan Ben Uzziel lived probably a little before the time of Christ ;
but Joseph the Blind presided over the school at Sora about A.D. 322. A
great part of the Targum, which goes under his name, was probably written
much later.]
[ 5 c. 3, 6, 911.]
[ 6 pp. 206209. ed. Steph. Par. 1544.]
[ 7 p. 294. Opp. Just. Mart. Par. 1636.]
[ 8 Circumfertur libellus ejus nomine de LXX. interpretibus, confictus ut
118 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
c. 43. August, de Civit. Dei,) supposes this book to be the fiction
of a more modern writer. That the scriptures were translated into
Greek, there can be no doubt, since all antiquity attests the fact.
But the other parts of the story are not equally certain.
This version I suppose to have been the first and earliest of
all the Greek versions; although Clemens Alexandrinus (Stromat.
Lib. i. 1 ) seems to say that the scripture was translated into Greek
long before this period, and read by Plato ; and the question of
Numenius, a Pythagorean philosopher, is alleged by him, TI yap
ecrri nXarwi/ $ M cocrrjs aTTiKifyv ; What else is Plato but an
Attic Moses ? But if the sacred books of scripture had been
translated into the Greek tongue previously, then Demetrius, who
collected the library for king Ptolemy, would not have been igno
rant of that version or desired a new one. Plato, indeed, and the
Pythagoreans might have known something of these books from
the common discourse of men and intimacy with those who were
acquainted with them ; but I hardly think that they ever read the
books in Greek. For this was the first Greek translation, published
about three hundred years before Christ, as Theodoret writes in
these words : " This first edition was published three hundred
and one years before God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, came
to sojourn with us in the flesh 2 ."
Some there are who think that the seventy interpreters did
not translate the whole scripture of the old Testament, but only the
law into the Greek language, understanding under the name of the
law not the entire ancient scripture, but merely the Pentateuch.
Such was the opinion of Josephus, as we find in the Proem to his
antiquities, where he hath these words : " For Ptolemy did not
puto ab aliquo recentiore. P. 620. ed. Froben. Basil. 1512. The spurious-
ness of this piece was finally demonstrated by Hody, in a treatise which forms
the first part of his great work, De Bibliorum Textibus, &c. Oxon. 1705.]
[ 1 dir}p[j.r]VVTai Se Kal npo Ar]fj,r)Tpiov ra T Kara TTJV e Aiyimrov
c^ayayrjv TCOV E/Spauov TOIV ^fierepcov 7roAireoz&gt;, Kal 77 TO&gt;V ycyovorcav drrdvrcov
avrols 7Ti(j)di&gt;ia, Koi Kpdrrjo-Ls TTJS ^copa?, Kal rfjs o\rjs vo^oOfarLas C7re^yij(ns
cocrre evftrjXov clvai TOV TrpoeiprjiJievov &lt;pi\6cro&lt;pov el\r)(pevai TroXXa. yeyove yap
TroXvpaOris. P. 342. B.C. The passage is quoted from Aristobulus,upon whom
see Valckenaer, de Aristobulo Judseo Diatribe. It appears to me, however,
that Aristobulus is there not speaking of any regular translation, but of such
pieces as those of Ezekiel Tragoadus, in which the greater part of the Mosaic
history was paraphrased in Greek verse or prose.]
[ 2 Trparr) de avrr] fj CK$O(TIS eyei/ero TTpo rpiaKoo-rov Trpwrov erovs rrjs
trapKos Trpbs ijfJias 7ridr)ij,ias rov 0eou Adyov KCU Kvpiov TJ^WV *Ir)(rov
III.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 119
obtain the whole scripture ; but the interpreters only delivered to
him the law 3 ." Which, he says, was the circumstance that led him
to introduce the whole scripture to Grecian readers. That this
was Josephus opinion is confirmed also by the testimony of Jerome.
But others hold that all the books were translated ; and theirs
seems the more probable view. For the reason which led them
to make any version at all is sufficient to persuade one that they
made a complete one ; nor would the king have been satisfied with
only a part. The wonder, too, which some relate of the incredible
celerity with which the task was performed would have no place, if
they translated so small a piece only. Chrysostom, in his discourse
against the Jews, affirms that the scriptures translated by them
were reposited in the temple of Serapis, and the version of the
prophetic books might be found there even still : ime-^pi vvv e /cet
TWV Hpo(priTa)V at epfMrjvevOe^crai /3i/3\oi juevovatv*. And Theo-
doret says that the Jews sent to king Ptolemy not a part only of
the scripture, but the whole written in golden characters, ^pvcrot^
ypa/jL/jiacri TYJV Traa av ypafbtjv evrrtj/mrjvdfjievoi. Now, if the books
of the prophets translated into Greek by them remained in the
royal library to the time of Chrysostom, and if the Jews sent the
whole scripture along with the interpreters to the king, there is no
room left to doubt that the whole scripture was translated by them
into the Grecian language.
What authority, however, this version should command is un
certain. The ancients used to hold it in the highest estimation, and
looked upon it as unique and divine. Epiphanius, in his book of
Weights and Measures, says that the translators were not mere
interpreters, but, in some sort, prophets also 5 . And Augustine (de
Doct. Christ. Lib. n. c. 15) says, that this version was made by a
divine dispensation, and was held in greatest repute among the
best learned churches, since the translators were said to have been
" aided by such a presence of the Holy Spirit in their interpreta
tion as that they all had but one mouth 6 ." Upon this subject he
[3 ovfte yap Tracrav eVceii/oy e(f)6r) Xa/3eTi/ rr\v avaypafpyv, aXX* avra p.6va ra
TOV vopov Trapedcxrav ol treaty 6 evres firi TJJV e^rjyrjoriv els TTJV AXe^avdpeiav.
Procem. 3. p. 6.]
[4 Tom. vi. p. 37. ed. Savil.]
[ 6 ov p,6vov epp,r]vevTai eKeii/ot yeyovacriv, a\\a Koi OTTO pepovs Trpofpfjrai. De
Pond, et Mens. 17. Opp. T. n. p. 173. c. ed. Petav. Colorme. 1682.]
[ 6 Scptuaginta interpretum, quod ad vetus Testamentum attinet, excellifc
120 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
hath also written largely in his City of God, Lib. xvm. c. 42 and
43. In like manner, Irens3us (Lib. in. c. 25) writes that, though
each made his translation apart, yet in the end, when they all
met together and compared their several versions, " they all recited
the same thing and in the very same words and terms from
beginning to the end ; so as that the gentiles who stood by might
easily perceive, that it was by the inspiration of God that the
scriptures were translated 1 ." So Augustine, in the City of God,
Lib. xvin. c. 42 : " The tradition is that there was so wonderful,
stupendous, and absolutely divine agreement in their expressions,
that although each sat down separately to this task (for so Ptolemy
chose to try their fidelity), yet none differed from another even in
a single word, though it were synonymous and equivalent, or in
the order and placing of the words. But, as if there had been
but one translator, so the translation was one ; as, indeed, it was
one and the same Holy Spirit which was in them all 2 ." Now,
while I doubt not that this version was held in high authority,
and that deservedly too, I cannot think that the miracles which
are told to magnify its authority deserve credit ; and, indeed, we
find that they are treated as fables by Jerome in the Preface to
the Pentateuch 3 . However great may have been the authority
of this version, it could not have been greater than that of our
version. They, therefore, attribute too much to it, who make it
inspired, and equal to the authentic scriptures themselves. For
the authority of those interpreters was not so illustrious and cer
tain as that of the prophets : nor is it the same thing to be an
auctoritas: qui jam per omnes peritiores ecclesias tanta prsesentia Sancti
Spiritus interpretati esse dicuntur, ut os unum tot hominum fuerit.J
[1 T&V TravTtov ra avTa Tais avrais Ae^ecri KOL rols avrois ovop.ao lv dvayopev-
a-avTutv an ap^rjs /^X/ 31 T^OVS, coore Kal TO. irapovra c 6vrj yvavai on KCLT cninvotav
TOV Qeov fla\v ^pprjvevfjievai al ypacfrai P. 293. ut supra.]
[ 2 Traditur sane tarn mirabilem ac stupendum planeque divinum in eorum
verbis fuisse consensum, ut cum ad hoc opus separatim singuli sederint, (ita
enim eorum fidem Ptolemseo regi placuit explorasse,) in nullo verbo, quod
idem significaret et tantundem valeret, vel in verborum ordine, alter ab altero
discreparet, sed tanquam si unus esset interpres, ita quod omnes interpretati
sunt, unum erat, quoniam revera Spiritus erat unus in omnibus.]
[ 3 Nescio quis primus auctor septuaginta cellulas Alexandria? mendacio
suo extruxerit, quibus divisi eadem scriptitarint, cum Aristseus ejusdem
Ptolemsei vTrcpaa-Tricrr^s, et multo post tempore Josephus nihil tale retu-
lerint, sed in una basilica congregates contulisse scribant, non prophetasse.
T. ix. p. 3.]
III.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 121
interpreter and to be a prophet. Rightly, therefore, does Jerome 4 ,
in the Preface to the Pentateuch, call the seventy interpreters, not
prophets. In his Commentaries also he frequently blames the
Greek version of the seventy translators, not only as depraved by
the scribes, but even as faulty in itself; which he surely would
not have done, if he had deemed that translation to be possessed of
such divine and supereminent authority.
Learned men question, whether the Greek version of the scrip
tures now extant be or be not the version of the seventy elders.
The sounder opinion seems to be that of those who determine that
the true Septuagint is wholly lost 5 , and that the Greek text, as
we have it, is a mixed and miserably corrupted document. Aris-
tseus says that the Septuagint version was exactly conformable to
the Hebrew originals, so that, when read and diligently examined
by skilful judges, it was highly approved by the general suffrage
of them all. But this of ours differs amazingly from the Hebrew
copies, as well in other places and books, as specially in the Psalms
of David. Nor is there room for any one to reply that the He
brew is corrupt. For even the papists will not venture to maintain
that the Greek is purer than the Hebrew. If they did, they
would be obliged to condemn their own Latin version, which agrees
much more closely with the Hebrew than with the Greek. Nay,
the faults of the Greek translation are so manifest, that it is im
possible to find any way of excusing them. There is the greatest
difference between the Hebrew and Greek books in the account of
times and years. The Greek books reckon 2242 years from Adam
and the beginning of the world to the flood, as we read in Augus
tine, Eusebius, and Nicephorus Chronology. But in the Hebrew
books we see that there were no more than 1656. Thus the
Greek calculation exceeds the Hebrew by 586 years. Again, from
the deluge to Abraham there is, according to the LXX., an
interval of 1082 years. But if you consult the Hebrew verity,
you will not find more than 292 6 . Thus the Greek books exhibit
[ 4 Aliud est enim esse vatem, aliud esse interpretem. Ibi Spiritus yentura
prsedicit: hie eruditio et verborum copia ea quse intelligit profert. Ibid.]
[ 5 This opinion is most learnedly, but in my opinion most hopelessly
maintained by Ussher, in his Syntagma De LXX. Interprett. See Walton
Proleg. ix. pp. 125159. (Vol. n. ed. Wrangham.)]
[ 6 See some admirable remarks upon the comparative merits of the He
brew, Samaritan, and Greek chronologies in Gesenius, De Pentateuchi Samar.
Orig. &c. Halse. 1815.]
122 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
790 years more than the Hebrew : and all concede the Hebrew
numbers to be much truer than the Greek. Gen. v., in the Greek
books, Adam is said to have lived 230 years, or, according to
some copies, 330, when he begat Seth. But the Hebrew text
shews that Seth was born when Adam was 130 years old. In
the rest there is a similar discordance of reckoning times, so as to
prove that it was not without reason that Jerome wrote that the
LXX. sometimes erred in their numbers. It is even a laughable
mistake in the Greek by which Methusalem is made to survive the
flood fourteen years 1 . Where did he remain during the deluge ?
or how was he preserved ? Certainly he was not in the ark ; in
which the scripture testifies that there were no more than eight per
sons. This, therefore, is a manifest falsity in the Greek edition.
But the Hebrew text speaks much more truly of the years and age
of Methusalem ; and we collect from it that he died in that same
year in which the world was overwhelmed by the deluge. Augus
tine treats of this matter in his City of God, Lib. xv. c. 11. So
Jonah iii., according to the Hebrew reading, destruction is de
nounced against the Ninevites after 40 days. But in the Greek
we read otherwise, " Yet three days, and Nineve shall be de
stroyed:" which is manifestly a false reading; for he could
scarcely have traversed the whole city in three days. Augustine
(Civit. Dei. Lib. xvm. c. 44) invents I know not what mystery in
this change of numbers to preserve the authority of the Septuagint,
which, nevertheless, in the former place about Methusalem he is
unable to defend.
From these and innumerable examples of the like sort we may
conclude, either that this Greek version which hath come down to
our times is not the same as that published by the seventy Jewish
elders, or that it hath suffered such infinite and shameful cor
ruptions as to be now of very slight authority. Even Jerome had
not the Greek translation of the seventy interpreters in its purity ;
since he often complains in his commentaries that what he had
was faulty and corrupt.
[ l Whitaker might have remembered, that Augustine (Civit. Dei, xv. 13),
and the author under his name of the Questions on Genesis, Q. n. appeal to
ancient MSS. of the LXX. which are free from this fault. Walton (Proleg.
IX. T. n. p. 168. edit. Wrangham) observes, that Methusalem s age at the
birth of Lamech is made 187 instead of 167 in the Cotton MS., the octateuch
of J. Clemens, and the Aldine edition.]
IV.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 123
CHAPTER IV.
OF OTHER GREEK TRANSLATIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
BESIDES this first and most famous translation, which was made
by the seventy interpreters, there were formerly other Greek ver
sions also of the old Testament, composed by various authors after
the gospel of Christ had been spread far and wide over the world.
The first of these was Aquila of Sinopo, whom the emperor Hadrian
employed as prefect and curator of the works when he repaired
Jerusalem. Epiphanius, in his book of Weights and Measures,
relates that this Aquila, having originally been a Greek, received
baptism and was admitted into the Christian society ; but, on account
of his assiduous devotion to astrology, was first censured by the
Christians, and finally, when he disregarded their censures and
admonitions, ejected from the Church ; that, stung by such a dis
grace, this impious man revolted from the Christians to the Jews,
had himself circumcised, learned the Hebrew language and literature,
and translated the scriptures of the old Testament into Greek, but
not with faithfulness or sincerity, but with a depraved and perverse
intention (/ca/zTri/Xw KO.I ci(TTpctiu./uLvit) Ao r yf&lt;j/uw, as Theodoret
says,) of obscuring the testimonies which confirm the doctrine of
Christ, and giving a plausible colour to his apostasy.
He was followed by Symmachus, whom Epiphanius testifies to
have lived in the time of Aurelius Yerus 2 , and who was a Samaritan
according to Theodoret. "Being ambitious of power and dignity,
and unable to obtain from his countrymen that authority and
honour which he desired, he betook himself to the Jews, and trans
lated the scriptures from Hebrew into Greek (Trpos Siao-Tpo(prjv)
for the confutation of the Samaritans. Epiphanius relates that this
Symmachus was twice circumcised ; teal TrepiTefjiveTai, says he,
Seurepau TYJV TrepLro^v which he shews to be possible by adducing
those words of the apostle, Treprer/a^ei/os rts CK\yj6rj ; /u^ TTL-
o-rracrOu), and ascribes the device there meant to Esau as the
inventor.
Next came 3 one Theodotion of Pontus, of the party and sect of
Marcion. He, having not only rejected the Marcionite opinions,
[ 2 Ut supra, c. 16.]
[ 3 Whitaker has fallen into a mistake in placing Theodotion after Sym
machus. See Hody, p. 179.]
124 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
but also utterly abjured Christianity, went over to the Jews ; and,
having learned their language, translated the scriptures into the
Greek tongue, " for the confutation, " as Theodoret says, " of his
own sect" (jrpos diacrTpo&lt;pr)v TIJS avrov aipecrews). These three
interpreters were enemies of the Christian faith, and did not trans
late the scriptures honestly. Yet Jerome and other ancient writers
often cite their translations in commenting upon the bible. Those
versions have now perished, save that the papists retain some
parts of Theodotion s version, and obtrude them on the world as
canonical. For they have the apocryphal 13th and 14th of Daniel
not from the pure Hebrew originals, but from the Greek translation
of Theodotion, an impious heretic or apostate.
There was also another Greek translation by Lucian 1 , a pres
byter of the church of Antioch, and a martyr about the time of
Diocletian, which is mentioned by Theodoret, in the Synopsis of
Athanasius, and elsewhere 2 . They say that this was found written
by the martyr s own hand, at Nicomedia, in a marble tower. And
Jerome, in the catalogue, says that in his time some copies were
called Lucianea. There were also two other editions by unknown
authors. The first was found at Jericho in a pitcher 3 , in the reign
of Caracalla ; the other in a similar vessel, at the northern
Nicopolis, in the reign of Alexander the son of Mamma3a, as Epi-
phanius and Theodoret testify.
I come now to Origen, who, according to the narrative of Epi-
phanius and others, being assisted by the resources of Ambrosius,
a rich and pious person, bestowed incredible pains upon collecting
and comparing the various editions of the scriptures 4 . He brought
together the Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, the seventy-two^
and Theodotion, into one volume, arranged in four distinct columns.
This formed what is called Origen s Tetrapla (reTpcnrXa /3i/3A&lt;a).
Afterwards he added the Hebrew text in two columns, expressing in
one in Hebrew, in the other in Greek characters. This was the
Hexapla. Lastly, he appended the two anonymous versions found
in jars, and so constructed the Octapla, a laborious and super-human
[* Lucian made no new translation, but only revised the text of the LXX.
See Hody, p. 627.]
[ 2 Synopsis Script, inter Opp. Athanasii. T. n. pp. 203, 204. cf. Suidas,
VOC. AovKtai/os.]
[ 3 Epiphan. de Mens. et Pond. c. 17.]
[ 4 See what is still the fullest and best account of Origen s labours in
Hody, Lib. iv. c. 11.]
IV.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 125
work, which is now lost, to the irreparable injury of the
Church. Origen marked these texts with various asterisks and
obeli, lemnisci and hypolemnisci, according as the various and
manifold characters of those editions required. This was a work the
loss of which we may deplore, but cannot compensate.
CHAPTER V.
OF THE GREEK EDITION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
WE have next, in the second place, to speak of the Greek
edition of the new Testament. It is certain that the whole new
Testament was written in Greek, unless, perhaps, we are to except
the Gospel of Matthew and the Epistle to the Hebrews. Hosius
of Esmeland (in his book de Sacro Yernac.) says, that it was only
the Gospel of Matthew which was written in Hebrew. Jerome
affirms the same thing in these words of his Preface to the four
evangelists addressed to Damasus : " The new Testament is un
doubtedly Greek, with the exception of the Apostle Matthew, who
first published the gospel in Judaea in Hebrew letters 5 ." Neverthe
less in the catalogue, under the article Paul, he says that the Epistle
to the Hebrews was written in Hebrew. Thus he writes : " He wrote
most eloquently as a Hebrew to the Hebrews, in the Hebrew, that
is, in his own language 6 ." The translation of this epistle into Greek
some ascribe to Barnabas, as Theodorus Lector 7 in his second book
of Collectanea, some to Luke 8 , and some to Clemens 9 . But, how
ever that may be, the Greek edition both of the Gospel according
to Matthew and of the Epistle to the Hebrews is authentic. For
the Hebrew originals (if any such there were) are now nowhere
extant, and the Greek was published in the life-time of the apostles,
[ 5 De novo nunc loquor Testamento, quod Grsecum esse non dubium est,
excepto apostolo Matthaeo, qui primus in Judaea evangelium Christi Hebraicis
literis edidit. Opp. T. i. p. 1426.]
[ 6 Scripserat, ut Hebrseus Hebrseis, Hebraice, id est suo eloquio, disertis-
sime.]
[? I think this is a mistake. At least I can find no such statements in
Theodorus.]
[ 8 So Clemens Alex. ap. Euseb. H. Eccl. L. vi. c. 14.]
[ 9 Euseb. H. E. Lib. III. C. 38. 01 p.ev TOV euayyeAto-n/i/ AOVKCH/, 01 de roy
TOVTOV avrov eppr)Vfv&lt;rai \cyovcri rrjv
126 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
received in the church, and approved by the apostles themselves.
Jerome in the Catalogue (Article MATTH^EUS), tells us : " He first
composed a gospel in the Hebrew character and language, in Juda3a,
for the sake of those of the circumcision who had believed ; but it is
not certainly known who translated it into Greek." He adds, that
" the Hebrew text itself was preserved in his time in the library of
Caesar aea which was built by the martyr Pamphilus 1 ." So Nazian-
zene in his version upon the genuine books 2 :
Mardaios pev eypatytv E/3pai ois flavpara XpicrroO*
where, when he says that Matthew wrote the miracles of Christ for
the Hebrew, it is implied that he wrote his gospel in Hebrew. So
Irenseus, Lib. HI. c. 1, relates, that "Matthew published the scripture
of the gospel amongst the Hebrews in their own language 3 ." These
fathers then suppose that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew, and
that it was translated by an unknown hand. Athanasius, however,
in his Synopsis 4 , writes that the Hebrew gospel of Matthew was
translated into Greek by the apostle James, but brings no argument
to command our credence.
Nor is the opinion of a Hebrew original of the gospel of
Matthew supported by any proofs of sufficient strength. For
at the time when Christ was upon earth the Jews did not speak
Hebrew, but Syriac. Matthew, therefore, would rather have
written in Syriac than in Hebrew; as indeed it is the opinion
of Widmanstadt and Guido Fabricius, to which our Jesuit also
subscribes, that Matthew wrote his gospel not in the Hebrew, but
in the Syriac language. And they allege that, when the fathers
say that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, we must understand them to
mean that Hebrew dialect which the Jews then used, and which was
[ l Primus in Judaea, propter eos qui ex circumcisione crediderant, evange-
lium Christi Hebraicis literis verbisque composuit : quod quis postea in Grse-
cum transtulerit non satis certum est. Porro ipsum Hebraicum habetur
usque hodie in Ceesariensi Bibliotheca, quam Pamphilus Martyr studiosissime
confecit. c. 3. It seems to be certain, nevertheless, that Jerome believed
this Gospel to have been written in Syriac. Compare Adv. Pelag. Lib. in.
c. 1. In evangelic juxta Hebrseos, quod Chaldaico quidem Syroque sermone,
sed Hebraicis literis scriptum est, quo utuntur usque hodie Nazareni, secun-
dum apostolos, sive (ut plerique autumant) juxta Mattheeum, quod et in Ccesa-
riensi habetur Bibliotheca, &c.]
[2 Poem. xxxm. 31. Opp. T. n. p. 99. Lips. 1690.]
[3 6 iiev Mar$cuos ei&gt; rots E/Spaiois 1 TTJ Idiq dia\KTO) avrcov /cat ypafbrjv e^rj
Kfv evayyeXiov. P. 220. et ap. Euseb. H. E. Lib. v. c. 8.]
[ 4 Inter Opp. Athan. T. n. p. 177.]
V.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 127
not pure Hebrew, but Syriac, or a mixture of Hebrew and Chaldee.
Yet Jerome thought that the gospel of Matthew was written in pure
Hebrew: for, in the catalogue under the article MATTH^US, he writes
that there was a MS. remaining of this Hebrew gospel in the
library of Nicomedia 5 , and that he was permitted to make a copy
of it. On the whole, therefore, it seems uncertain that Matthew
wrote his gospel either in Hebrew or in Syriac; and it is rather to
be thought that both Matthew and the author of the epistle to the
Hebrews wrote in Greek, since the Greek language was then not
unknown to the Jews themselves, and the other apostles used the
Greek language not only in those pieces which they wrote for all
promiscuously, but also in those which were inscribed peculiarly to
the Jews, as we see in the case of James and Peter. However,
the learned are agreed that those Hebrew copies of this gospel and
epistle which are now extant are not genuine.
The Lord willed the new Testament to be written in Greek,
because he had determined to bring forth the gospel from the
narrow bounds of Judaea into a broader field, and publish it to
all people and nations. On this account the Lord selected the
Greek language, than which no other was more commonly known
by all men, wherein to communicate his gospel to as many coun
tries and persons as possible. He willed also that the heavenly
truth of the gospel should be written in Greek in order to pro
vide a confutation of the Gentiles idolatry and of the philosophy
and wisdom of the Grecians. And, although at that time the
Romans had the widest empire, yet Cicero himself, in his ora
tion for the poet Archias, bears witness that the language of the
Greeks was more widely extended than that of the Romans 6 . As,
therefore, before Christ the holy doctrine was written in that lan
guage which was the peculiar and native tongue of the Church ; so
after Christ all was written in Greek, that they might more easily
reach and be propagated to the Church now about to be gathered
out of all nations.
[ 5 Mihi quoque a Nazarseis, qui in Bereea urbe Syrise hoc yolumine utun-
tur, describendi facultas fuit. Vide supra.]
[ 6 Grseca leguntur in omnibus fere gentibus : Latina suis fmibus, exiguis
sane, continentur. Cic. Opp. T. v. p. 445, ed. Lallemand. Paris. 1768.]
128 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
CHAPTER VI.
OF THE LATIN VULGATE EDITION.
I COME now, as was proposed in the third place, to the Latin
edition, which is commonly called the Vulgate. That there were
formerly in the church very many Latin versions of the scriptures,
we have the testimony of Augustine (de Doctr. Christ. Lib. n. c. 11)
to assure us. His words are : " Those who have translated the
scriptures into Greek out of the Hebrew language may be counted,
but the Latin translators cannot 1 ." Augustine expresses an opinion,
that a theologian may derive some assistance from this multitude
of versions; but shews plainly that he did not consider any one in
particular authentic, but thought that whatever in each was most
useful for the reader s purpose, should be employed as a means for
the right understanding of scripture. But Jerome, in the preface to
Joshua, complains of this so great variety of the Latin texts: for
he says that "there were as many texts as copies, since every one,
at his own caprice, added or subtracted what he pleased 2 ." But
among the rest there was one more famous, which was called Itala 3 ;
and which Augustine (Doctr. Christ. Lib. IL c. 15) prefers to the
others, for keeping closer to the words and expressing the sense
more clearly and intelligibly. This was not, however, that version
which Jerome published. Who the author of this version was is
not known, but it was certainly more ancient than the Hieronymian:
for Gregory, in his epistle to Leander 4 , says that the Roman
[! Qui ex Hebrsea lingua scripturas in Grsecam verterunt numerari pos-
sunt, Latini autem nullo modo.]
[ 2 Maxime cum apud Latinos tot sint exemplaria, quot codices, et unus-
quisque pro arbitrio suo vel addiderit vel subtraxerit quod ei visum est.]
[ 3 As this is the only passage in which any ancient Latin father speaks of
a versio Itala, various critical efforts have been made to alter the text ; the
most ingenious being that of Archbp. Potter: "In ipsis autem interpretatio-
nibus USITATA ceteris prseferatur; nam est verborum tenacior cum perspi-
cuitate sententise." He supposes the present reading to have originated by
the absorption of the Us in the last syllable of the preceding word, after
which Itata was easily changed into Itala. But see, in defence of the old
reading, Hug. Einl. 115.]
[ 4 Novam vero translationem dissero ; sed ut comprobationis causa exigit,
nunc novam, nunc veterem, per testimonia assumo : ut quia sedes apostolica
(cui auctore Deo prsesideo) utraque utitur, mei quoque labor studii ex utraque
fulciatur. T. i. p. 6. Opp. Paris. 1705.]
VI.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 129
church made use of two versions, one of which he calls the old, and
the other the new. The old was most probably that same Italic ,
the new the Hieronymian, which presently after its publication
began to be read in some churches, as we may collect from Augus
tine s 10th epistle to Jerome, where he writes that some Christians
were offended by a new word occurring in it : for in the fourth
chapter of Jonah the old Latin edition had cucurbita (a gourd);
but Jerome in his version made it hedera (ivy) 5 . Perhaps the
Hebrew term does not really denote either, but a quite different
plant called Ricinus (or Palma Christi). Now, although there were
formerly many and almost infinite Latin versions in the Latin Church,
yet these two were undoubtedly the most celebrated and used in the
greatest number of churches, since we find Gregory attesting the
use of them both in the Church of Rome.
At length, however, not only the rest, which were more ob
scure, but even the Italic too fell altogether out of use, and the
Hieronymian alone prevailed everywhere throughout the Latin
churches, if indeed it hath any just claims to be called the Hie
ronymian. For I am well aware that there are learned men who
entertain great doubts upon that subject : and, although most of
the Papists, and the Jesuits especially, maintain the present Latin
edition to be the pure Hieronymian, there are, nevertheless, amongst
them theologians of great erudition and judgment, who determine
quite the other way, and that upon very weighty grounds. Xantes
Pagninus, in the Preface to his Translation, which he inscribed to
Clement VII., declares himself of opinion that it is not Jerome s, and
wishes earnestly that Jerome s own version were remaining. In
like manner Paul of Forossombrone, De Die Passion. Domin. Lib.
IT. c. 1; not to mention Erasmus, Munster, and the rest of that sort.
Others, though they allow it to be partly the Hieronymian, yet
think it not throughout that same version which Jerome composed
with so much care and fidelity, but a mixture of the Hieronymian
and some other ancient version. So John Driedo, de Catalog. Script.
Lib. ii. c. 1 : "There are some who say that this Latin translation,
which the whole church of the Latins commonly makes use of, is
neither the work of St Jerome, nor in all points perfectly consonant
[ 5 In hoc loco quidam Cantherius dudum Romse dicitur me accu-
sasse sacrilegii, quod pro cucurbita hederam transtulerim : timens videlicet,
ne si pro cucurbitis hedcrse nascerentur, unde occulte et tenebrose biberet
non haberet. Hieron. Comment, in Jon. iv. Opp. vi. 425. Compare also
his Epistle to Augustine. Ep. 112.]
[WHITAKER.]
130 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
to the sacred original of scripture 1 :" and he adds that it is blamed
and corrected, not only by Armachanus and Lyra, but also by other
persons of the present time well skilled in both languages. After
wards, in his first proposition, he determines that this Latin translation,
as well of the old as of the new Testament, is neither an altogether
different translation from Jerome s, nor yet altogether the same with
it. Sixtus Senensis (Bibliotheca, Lib. vm) is of the same opinion,
and confesses that he has been brought to that opinion by demon
strative arguments. Bellarmine (Lib. n. c. 9) lays down the three
following propositions. First, that the Books of Wisdom, Eccle-
siasticus, Maccabees, and the Psalms, as they have them, are not
part of Jerome s version. The former three he did not translate,
because he judged them apocryphal. The Psalms he translated with
the utmost care and religious scrupulousness from the Hebrew : but
this Vulgate version (as they call it) of the Psalms was made from
the Greek, as appears on the face of it, and as our adversaries them
selves allow. It is even good sport to see how Genebrard, in his
Scholia, tries to reconcile the Latin version with the Hebrew. Se
condly, that the Latin edition of the new Testament was not made,
but only amended, by Jerome: for Jerome, at the request of Damasus,
corrected the old version, but did not make a new one ; as he him
self testifies in several places, and specially in the catalogue towards
the end. "The new Testament," says he, "I restored to the Greek
fidelity; the old I translated according to the Hebrew 2 ." Thirdly,
that all the other parts of the old Testament are exhibited in the
Vulgate according to Jerome s version.
The reasons which he alleges shew, that this is not the sincere
Hieronymian edition of either the old or the new Testament,
but that it may perhaps be not altogether a different version
from the Hieronymian, as Driedo and Sixtus Senensis suppose.
Much might be said upon this subject, but we must not spend too
much time upon such matters. I shall, therefore, in a few words
make it as plain as the light, that this is not the version which
Jerome either made himself or published in an amended form.
For, first of all, Jerome translated the old Testament accurately
from the Hebrew, as he hath himself frequently professed and
[* Sunt qui dicunt translationem hanc Latinam, qua communiter utitur
tota Latinorum ecclesia, neque esse divi Hieronymi, neque in omnibus con-
sonam scripturse sacrse original!. Opp. Lovan. 1550. T. I. p. 24.]
[ 2 Nbvum Testamentum Grsecse fidei reddidi. Vetus juxta Hebraicam trans-
tuli. c. 135. Opp. n. 941. The latter clause, Vetus, &c. is wanting in one MS.]
VI.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 131
testified. In the Preface of the Psalter to Sophronius (which is
the Epistle 133) he writes thus of his translation : " Certainly I
will say it boldly, and can cite many witnesses of my work, that I
have changed nothing of the sense, at least from the Hebrew verity.
Wherever, therefore, my edition clashes with the old ones, ask any
Hebrew, and you will see clearly that I am unreasonably attacked by
my rivals, who choose rather to seem despisers of what is excellent
than to become learners 3 ." Again, in the Preface to the five books of
Moses : " Wherever you think I go wrong in my translation, ask
the Jews, consult the masters in various cities, &c. 4 " And in the
preface to Kings he declares that he hath nowhere departed from
the Hebrew verity 5 . So that Jerome everywhere most carefully
compared and adjusted his version by the standard of the Hebrew
books. This Augustine also (Civit. Dei, Lib. xvin. c. 43) testifies
concerning him : " We have had in our own time the presbyter
Jerome, a very learned man and one exquisitely skilled in the
three languages, who hath translated the divine scriptures not
from the Greek, but from the Hebrew, into Latin ; whose stupen
dous literary work the Hebrews acknowledge to be faithful to the
original 6 ." So Isidorus of Seville, in his Etymologicon, Lib. vi, c. 5,
prefers the version of Jerome to all others, as adhering more
closely to the words and expressing the sense with greater per
spicuity. That such was the character of the Hieronymian version
no man can reasonably doubt, since Jerome himself affirms it so often,
and others agree in the same testimony.
But now this Vulgate, which we now have, exhibits in the
several books considerable variations from the Hebrew text, as
Jerome himself, if he returned to life, would not be able to deny.
Nor can they answer that the Hebrew is corrupt. For, although
[ 3 Certe conMenter dicam, et multos liujus operis testes citabo, me niliil
duntaxat scientem de Hebraica veritate mutasse. Sicubi ergo editio mea a
veteribus discrepant, interroga quemlibet Hebrseorum, et liquido pervidebis,
me ab semulis frustra lacerari, qui malunt contemnere videri prseclara, quam
discere. Opp. T. ix. 1156.]
[ 4 Sicubi in translatione tibi videor errare, interroga Hebrseos, diversarum
urbium magistros consule. Ibid. 6.]
[ 5 Quanquam mihi omnino conscius non sim, mutasse me quidpiam de
Hebraica veritate. Ibid. 459.]
[ 6 Non defuit temporibus nostris presbyter Hieronymus, homo doctissi-
mus et trium linguarum peritissimus, qui non ex Grseco, sed ex Hebrseo in
Latinum divinas scripturas converteret: cujus tantum literarum laborem
Hebrsei fatentur esse veracem.]
92
132 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
some papists do indeed say this, yet they are refuted by plain
reason and by the authority of their own party. Bellarmine, Lib.
IT. c. 2, defends, against Jacobus Christopolitanus and Melchior
Canus, the integrity of the Hebrew copies, and proves by some
arguments that they could not have been corrupted by the Jews,
as those writers supposed. How were they corrupted? By the
copyists? This cannot be said, since all the MSS. agree; and,
besides, might just as well be said of the Latin as of the Hebrew
books. Since, then, the Vulgate edition differs so greatly from the
Hebrew, they must either pronounce the Hebrew grievously cor
rupt (which their more prudent champions will not venture to say),
or concede that the present Latin text is not the Hieronymian.
Besides, Jerome in his Questions upon Genesis, his Commentaries
on the Prophets, and his book De Optimo Genere Interpretandi,
hath judged that many passages ought to be translated otherwise
than we find them translated in this version. How then can that
be called Jerome s version, which Jerome himself condemns? Now
we could shew by many examples that many things in this version
are censured by Jerome. But it will suffice to give a specimen in
a few, which will be enough to establish our desired conclusion.
Whereas we read, Gen. i., in the Vulgate edition, Spiritus Dei
ferebatur super aquas, there is, says Jerome, in the Hebrew a term
which means "brooded, or cherished, as a bird warms its eggs with
animal heat 1 ." In Gen. iv. the Vulgate has, Et respexit Dominus
ad Abel et ad munera ejus; ad Cain autem et ad munera ejus non
respexit. Jerome thinks that the place should rather be translated,
as Theodotion hath translated it, " And the Lord sent fire upon
Abel and his sacrifice : but upon Cain and his sacrifice he did not
send fire ;" which translation he pronounceth to be most exact 2 .
In the same chapter he pronounces that clause, " Let us pass
into the field," to be superfluous 3 , though it appears both in the
Greek and Samaritan editions. Yet this is the same thing as the
Vulgate exhibits in the words, Egrediamur foras.
[! In Hebrseo habet MEREFETH, quod nos appellare possumus incubabat,
sive confovebat, in similitudinem volucris ova calore animantis. Qusest. Hebr.
in Genes. Opp. T. m. 306.]
[ 2 Unde scire poterat Cain, quod fratris munera suscepisset Deus, et sua
repudiasset ; nisi ilia interpretatio vera est, quam Theodotion posuit, Et
inflammavit Dominus super Abel, fyc. ib. 310.]
[3 Superfluum ergo est, quod in Samaritanorum et nostro volumine repo-
ritur, Transeamus in campum. ib. 312.]
VI.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 133
In Gen. xxx. 32, where we read cunctum gregem unicolorem,
Jerome observes that we ought to read non unicolorem* ; and so
reason and the context require. Likewise in the first chapter of
Isaiah, where the Vulgate hath, ut ambularetis in atriis meis, Je
rome translates, " No longer tread my court 5 ;" and so the version,
which we find in his works along with his Commentaries, still reads
it. So where the Vulgate hath, facti estis mihi molesti, Jerome
reads, facti estis mihi in satietatem. And, in the end of the chapter,
that passage, which the Vulgate represents by cum fueritis velut
quercus, Jerome translates, " They shall be like a terebinth 6 ."
Examples of this kind are almost innumerable.
Nor does this occur only in the old Testament, but in the new
also. In the first chapter of the Galatians, the passage, Non ac-
quievi carni et sanguini, Jerome in his Commentary says should
be translated, "I conferred not with flesh and blood 7 ." In the
same Epistle, chap. iii. 1, Jerome omits in his version these words,
non credere veritati 8 , which appear in the Vulgate ; whence Eras
mus in his Annotations writes, that this is one place out of many,
which prove that the present edition is not altogether the same as
Jerome s 9 . And in Eph. chap, i., Jerome blames the interpreter for
putting pignus for arrhabo, and proves, by excellent reasons, that
this is a false translation 10 : yet in all the books of the Vulgate
edition we have still not arrhabo but pignus, contrary to Jerome s
determination. Upon Eph. iv., where the vulgar copies have, qui
|&gt; Ibid. 352.]
[5 Calcare atrium meum non appoiietis. Opp. T. iv. 2, 1.]
[ 6 Jerome gives both translations : Usque hodie Judoei legentes scripturas
sanctus terebinthus sunt, sive quercus, ut interpretatus est Symmachus. T. iv.
39.]
[ 7 Sive, ut in Greeco melius habet: Non contuli cum came et sanguine.
T. vii. 391.]
[ 8 Legitur in quibusdam codicibus : Quis vos fascinavit non credere veri
tati? Sed hoc, quia in exemplaribus Adamantii non habetur, omisimus.
Ibid. 418.]
[ 9 Hie est unus locus e multis, quo coarguitur hsec editio non esse tota
Hieronymi. Etenim quum ille testetur se hanc particulam omisisse, quod in
Adamantii codicibus non inveniretur, in nostris codicibus constanter habetur.
Erasmi Annot. in N. T. p. 576. Basil. 1535.]
[ 10 Pignus Latinus interpres pro arrhabone posuit. Non idipsum autem
arrhabo quod pignus sonat. Arrhabo enim futurse emtioni quasi quoddam
testimonium et obligamentum datur. Pignus vero, hoc est, evexvpov, pro
mutua pecunia opponitur ; ut quum ilia reddita fucrit, reddenti debitum pig
nus a creditore reddatur. Hieron. Opp. T. vii. 560, 561.]
134 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
desperantes semetipsos tradiderunt impudicitice, "it is otherwise,"
says Jerome, " in the Greek. For the Gentiles do not despair,
since they haye no sense of their ruin, but live like brute beasts ac
cording to the flesh." And he subjoins that instead of " being in
despair," we may read, "being without feeling 1 ." Why should I
endeavour to go through all the rest ? It will be easier to find a
beginning than an end.
What Bellarmine adduces to obscure this light of truth, may be
dispelled without difficulty. For, first, in these and innumerable other
passages there is no error of the copyists ; for all the books, whether
ancient or modern, agree in the reading. Next, as to the various
signification of words, it is the duty of a good interpreter to con
sider well what signification is most suitable, and to choose it. But
when Jerome says plainly, that he thinks a certain place or word
should be translated otherwise than it is translated in the Vulgate,
it is manifest that that version cannot be Jerome s. For, as to his
third pretence that Jerome changed his opinion, although it
might be allowed in the case of a few passages, yet in the case of
so many it is incredible. If he had made so many changes, he
would have impaired, in no slight degre, the authority of his judg
ment. Besides, in most of the instances he had no reason for
changing. For in Gal. i. TrpoaaveOefjirjp is more correctly rendered
"conferred," than "acquiesced." Eph. i., dppa/3wv is not the
same as pignus, as Jerome himself hath taught us in his Commen
taries. " A pledge," says he, " is given for money borrowed ;
but an earnest is given as a sort of evidence and security of a
future purchase 2 ." And Eph. iv., aTrqXyrjKOTes does not mean
" despairing," but " being past or without feeling," as Jerome
says. Who that reads Jerome, disputing and proving by argu
ments, that these places should have been thus translated, can
doubt that he translated them thus himself? Nay, it is not
only clear that this is not Jerome s version, but manifest also
that it is a version condemned by Jerome.
As to Bellarmine s last excuse, that the church hath inter
posed its authority, and judged the first version to be the truer I
ask, when, or how the church declared that judgment? or what
church it is that he means ? or what right any church had to
[* Multo aliud in Grseco significat quam in Latino exprimamus
si possimus verbum de verbo, et dicamus, dTrrjXyyKOTfs indolentes, sive indolo-
rios. Ibid. 621.]
[ 2 See preceding page, note 10.]
VI.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 135
determine a false or improper version to be truer than a true 3 and
proper one ?
These, to omit the rest, are sufficiently plain reasons to prove,
that the Latin Vulgate is not that pure version which Jerome so
diligently composed and published. Since, however, so many things
are found in it which were in the Hieronymian, the opinion of those
who think it made up of Jerome s and some other ancient version
appears to commend itself to our approval.
CHAPTER VII.
WHEREIN AN ANSWER IS GIVEN TO THE ARGUMENTS OF OUR
OPPONENTS, WHEREBY THEY ENDEAVOUR TO PROVE THAT
THE LATIN VULGATE EDITION IS AUTHENTIC.
WE have next to discourse of the authority of this Vulgate
edition, which point is the hinge whereupon this controversy par
ticularly turns. Our adversaries determine that the authentic
scripture consists not in the Hebrew and Greek originals, but in
the Vulgate Latin version. We, on the contrary side, say that
the authentic and divinely-inspired scripture is not this Latin, but
the Hebrew edition of the old Testament, and the Greek of the
new. We shall first obviate the arguments of the adversaries, and
then produce our own. Upon this question many papists have
written, and published works, both great and numerous ; whose
diligence Bellarmine has sought to imitate, and endeavours to prove
this same conclusion by the following arguments.
He proposes his FIRST argument in this form : For nearly a
thousand years, that is, from the time of Gregory the Great, the
whole Latin church hath made use of this Latin edition alone. Now
it is absurd to say, that for eight or nine hundred years together
the church was without the true interpretation of scripture, or
respected as the word of God, in matters pertaining to faith and
religion, the errors of an uncertain translator, since the apostle,
1 Tim. in., declares the church to be the pillar and ground of truth.
[ 3 In the original, " aut quo jure potuit ulla ecclesia judicare versionem
aut falsam aut impropriam esse falsa propriaque veriorem?" Where falsa is
plainly a mistake, though not marked in the errata.]
136 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
Bellarmine says that this is the argument of the council of Trent,
and it is the same which Canus uses, Lib. n. c. 13.
I answer, in the first place, that the Latin was not at that time
the whole church ; for there were many and very populous
churches of the Greeks and others. Although, therefore, the Latin
church had erred, yet it would not follow that the whole church of
Christ had remained for such a length of time subject to that error.
Secondly, that the church may be deceived in the translation
of some passages without, in the meanwhile, ceasing to be the
church. For the church is not subverted by the circumstance,
that some place of scripture happens to be improperly rendered ;
and the Roman church, if it had no other errors except this
faulty version, and if it put a sound and pious meaning upon
this Latin scripture which it receives, might still be the church
of Christ. The fundamental points of the faith are preserved
intact in this Latin edition, if not everywhere, yet in very
many places. But that church not only receives and defends
this faulty version as the authentic scripture, but also pollutes
by its expositions those places in it, which are well or tolerably
rendered.
Thirdly, if it were so necessary that the Latin church should
have an authentic Latin version, which might claim equal credence
with the originals, it would have prevailed always in the Latin
church, not only after Gregory, but also before Gregory s time.
But we have shewn that there were many Latin versions in the
Latin church before Gregory, and no one in particular authentic :
and after Gregory there was no provision made by any decree of
the church that this Latin version should be authentic, until the
publication of this very decree of the council of Trent.
Fourthly, Bellarmme does not prove that the Latin church
from the time of Gregory used this edition only. For Isidore,
who lived after Gregory, says, Etymol. Lib. vi. c. 4, " that
Jerome s version is deservedly preferred to all the rest 1 ." There
were, therefore, other versions besides this of Jerome, though he
confesses it to be the purest and best. Besides, interpreters and
expositors, even after Gregory, do not always use to recite the
[ l Presbyter quoque Hieronymus, trium linguarum peritus, ex Hebrseo in
Latinum eloquium easdem scrip turas conyertit . . . cujus interpretatio merito
ceteris antefertur. Nam est et verborum tenacior et perspicuitate senten-
tico clarior. Madrit. 1599. p. 103. Which last are almost the very words in
\vhich Augustine commends the old Italic, De Doctr Christ, n. 15.]
VII.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 13?
words of scripture as they are now read in this edition, as is plain
from Bede and Gildas, and other writers, who flourished in the
church after Gregory.
Fifthly, as to the passage of St Paul, we shall explain it here
after in the proper place.
Bellarraine draws his SECOND argument from the testimonies of
the ancients. This version is either the Italic, which Augustine
praises, or that of Jerome, which Damasus, and Augustine, and
Isidore, and Rabanus, and Bernard, and others, commend and
follow. Nor is it the Latins only who give this approbation, but
the Greeks also, who turned out of Latin into Greek some books
which had been translated by Jerome out of Hebrew into Latin,
as Jerome himself testifies in his second book against Ruffinus, and
in his Catalogue under the article SopHRONius 2 .
I answer, first, that this argument is wholly inconclusive. For
what if those authors praise and commend this version ? Will it
therefore follow that this alone is authentic, or preferable to the
originals themselves ? Nothing less. They praise it, and deserv
edly : but yet they always prefer the originals to it. Jerome
himself adjusted his version by the standard of the originals, and
wished it to be judged of by that same standard. Augustine, as
we have previously shewn, passes a long encomium upon that
translation which the Seventy published. Will our adversaries
thence conclude that that translation is authentic? On the con
trary, they now esteem it very slightly. With what pertinency
then do they allege that Jerome s version is approved by Au
gustine and other Fathers ? Which yet was certainly never praised
in such a manner as not to imply, that not only the originals were
considered preferable, but even that higher praise might be deserv
edly challenged by the translation of the Seventy elders. In a
word, it is praised as a carefully executed translation, and is pre
ferred to other Latin versions, but not required to be received
as authentic scripture. Isidore, Etymol., Lib. vi. cap. 5, has these
words : " His [Jerome s] version is deservedly preferred to the
others 3 ;" that is, to the other versions, not to the originals them
selves.
Secondly, his assumption that this is either the Italic or the
[ 2 Sophronius .... opuscula mea in Grirecum eleganti sermone transtulit,
Psaltcrium quoque et Prophetas, quos nos de Hebrseo in Latinum trans tuli-
mus. Catalog. Scriptt. c. 134.]
[ 3 Vide supra, pp. 131, 136,]
138 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
Hieronymian, rests upon no certain basis. Some think it a Latin
version of Aquila s, or Symmachus s, or Theodotion s, Greek. That
it is not the pure text of Jerome s translation, the reasons which
we have previously adduced establish. The argument is, therefore,
faulty every way.
The THIRD argument is this : The Hebrews had the authentic
scripture in their own language, and the Greeks in theirs ; that is,
the old Testament in the Septuagint version, and the new Tes
tament in the original. Therefore it is fit that the Latin church
also should have the authentic scripture in its own language.
I answer, first, by requiring to know in what sense it is that
he makes the Septuagint version authentic. Is it in the same
sense in which they make their Latin text authentic? If so, I
deny its authenticity. For Augustine, who allowed most to the
authority of the Septuagint version, yet thought that it should be
corrected by the originals. But the papists contend that their
Latin text is authentic of itself, and ought not to be tried by the
text of the originals. Now in this sense no translation ever was,
or could be, authentic. For translations of scripture are always
to be brought back to the originals of scripture, received if they
agree with those originals, and corrected if they do not. That
scripture only, which the prophets, apostles, and evangelists wrote
by inspiration of God, is in every way credible on its own account
and authentic. Besides, if the Septuagint was formerly authentic,
how did it become not authentic ? At least in the Psalms it must
continue authentic still, since they derive their Latin version of
that book from no other source than the Greek of the Septuagint.
Even in the other books too it must still be authentic, since it is
plain from the commentaries of the Greek writers that it is the
same now as it was formerly.
Secondly, I would fain know how this argument is conse
quential, God willed his word and authentic scripture to be written
in Hebrew and Greek ; therefore also in Latin. The authentic
originals of the scripture of the old Testament are extant in
Hebrew, of the new in Greek. It no more follows from this that
the Latin church ought to esteem its Latin version authentic, than
that the French, or Italian, or Armenian churches should esteem
their vernacular versions authentic. If he grant that each church
should necessarily have authentic versions of its own, what are we
to do if these versions should (as they easily may) disagree ? Can
they be all authentic, and yet disagree amongst themselves ? But
VII.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 139
if he will not assign authentic versions to all churches, upon what
grounds will he determine that a necessity, which he grants to
exist in the Latin church, hath no place in others ? Cannot the
churches of the Greeks at the present day claim their version
likewise as authentic?
Thirdly, I know not with what truth they call theirs the
Latin church. For it does not now speak Latin, nor does any
one among them understand Latin without learning that language
from a master. Formerly it was, and was called, the Latin church.
Now it is not Latin, and therefore cannot truly be so called, except
upon the plea that, though not Latin, it absurdly uses a Latin
religious service.
The FOURTH argument is : It may happen that in general coun
cils either very few persons, or none at all, may understand He
brew or Greek. So Ruffinus, in his Ecclesiastical History, (Lib. x.
c. 21), writes that no bishop was found in the council of Rimini
who knew the meaning of the term onoovcrios. Now in such cases
the Church s interest would be badly provided for, if it did not
understand the authentic scripture.
I answer, in the first place, That it is absurd to draw an
argument against the authority or necessity of the originals from
the ignorance of prelates and bishops.
Secondly, There never was any general council in which some
persons could not be found who understood the scriptures in the
original. But it is not necessary that all who understand the
scriptures should be masters of those languages in which they
were first written. The true Church, indeed, hath always had,
and still possesses, many persons well skilled in those languages.
What sort of persons come to their councils, is no concern of
ours. But we grant that many come who know nothing of the
Hebrew, or Greek, or perhaps even the Latin, tongue.
Thirdly, It is false, that no one was found in the council of
Rimini capable of understanding the term O/ULOOIKTLOS. For there
were present many bishops from Greece, who were well acquainted
with the Greek language : but perhaps there were not many
among them who exactly perceived the whole force of that term.
Hence, suspecting that something wrong lay hid under the word,
they rashly rejected and condemned the OUJLOOVGIOV. But this
may happen to persons who are ever so well acquainted with the
languages.
The FIFTH argument. It would follow that all men, who are
not skilled in the Hebrew and Greek tongues, should always be in
140 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
doubt whether it is the true scripture which they read. This
argument Bellarmine hath omitted in the Sartorian edition ; having,
perhaps, upon reflection disapproved of it. Indeed it really contributes
nothing towards confirming the authority of the Latin version.
However I answer, in the first place, that the Church would
act wisely in not permitting every one to publish a new version
at his own caprice, and taking care that all versions should be as
pure and faithful as possible.
Secondly, men unskilled in the tongues, although they cannot
judge of the sense of each separate passage, whether all be cor
rectly rendered, can yet, being instructed by the Holy Spirit,
acknowledge and approve the doctrine.
Thirdly, this argument no more proves the Latin to be authen
tic than any other version, For they themselves allow vernacular
versions to the people under certain conditions. How then do
those who are unlearned and illiterate understand that they are
reading the true scripture? The unlearned in our country who
read the English version of the Ilhemists could never, if this
argument have any weight, be certain that they read the true
scripture. But Bellarmine hath himself renounced this argument.
The LAST argument is : The heretics, who despise the ancient
editions, make various and mutually discordant editions of their
own ; so that Luther, in his book against Zwingle, was moved to
say, that, if the world lasted long, it would again be necessary to
receive the decrees of councils, on account of these diverse inter
pretations of scripture. I answer, in the first place, what sort of
an argument is this? The editions of the heretics are various
and discordant; therefore the old Latin edition is authentic.
Secondly, we do not approve discordant editions and versions.
Thirdly, we make no edition authentic, save the Hebrew in the old,
and the Greek in the new, Testament. We approve translations,
if they agree with these standards : we reject them if they do
not. Fourthly, as to Luther, I do not know whether he said this
or not. The slanderous Cochlaeus hath affirmed it of him. It is a
matter of no moment. Such then are Bellarmine s arguments.
But Melchior Canus (Lib. n. c. 13) hath made use of some others
in this cause, but such as perhaps the Jesuit considered too futile.
Of this kind is this (which Canus, however, thinks a noble argu
ment), that the scholastic theologians have followed this alone, and
that the inquisitors of heretical pravity are wont to convince and
condemn heretics out of it. I answer, in the first place, that those
divines, whom they call scholastic, have drawn some most absurd
VII.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 141
conclusions from the Latin Vulgate edition, as appears plainly from
their books and disputations. I could produce a great many ex
amples. In Canticles, n. 4, the old interpreter hath translated thus :
Ordinavit in me caritatem. Hence Thomas (I believe a thousand
times) proves that there is a certain order and certain degrees in
charity. That all this is true and accordant with the scriptures,
I allow : but it is supported by no authority from this place and
testimony ; for the words should be translated otherwise : " His
banner towards me is charity." Again, Rom. xiii. 2 is read thus
in the Yulgate : Quce a Deo sunt, ordinata sunt. Hence this
same Thomas, undoubtedly the chief of all the schoolmen, collects
in many places that all things are well and rightly constituted by
God ; and specially in Prima Secundce, q. 102, art. 1, he proves
from these words, that ceremonial precepts have a reason. A
question, verily, both proposed and concluded with singular wis
dom ! For the place is most perversely rendered by that trans
lator ; who first omits altogether the word e^oucriai, " powers," and
then sets a comma after a Deo, when it should have been set before
it : not to mention that the reading is ordinata, when it should be
ordinatce. Thus those theologians frequently abuse the errors of
the Yulgate version, to confirm their own inventions.
CHAPTER VIII.
IN WHICH AN ANSWER IS GIVEN TO THE TEN REASONS OF THE
ANGLO-RHEMIST TRANSLATORS, WHEREBY THEY ENDEAVOUR
TO PROVE THE- AUTHORITY OF THE VULGATE VERSION IN
THE NEW TESTAMENT.
CERTAIN English popish divines, who have taken up their
abode in the seminary of Rheims, some years since translated
the new Testament into the English tongue, not from the Greek
text, but from the old Latin Vulgate 1 . In order to persuade us
of the wisdom and prudence of this proceeding, they produce in
their preface ten reasons to prove that this Latin Vulgate edition
is to be followed in all things rather than the Greek. We shall
now briefly report and refute those reasons.
[! It was first printed at Rheims in 4to in 1582. The principal transla
tors appear to have been Allen, Martin, and Bristow.]
142 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
I. This edition is so ancient that it hath been received in
the church by the space of 1300 years, as appears from the fathers
of those times.
I answer : However ancient they make it out, yet they must
needs confess that it is younger than the Greek edition. For the
Greek was not only older than the Latin, but than all other ver
sions, which are but streams derived from the fountain of the
Greek edition. If, then, an antiquity of 1300 years commends
the Latin version, the Greek text should be yet more strongly
commended to us, which we gather from the genuine monuments
of those times to have been publicly received 1500 years ago in
the churches of Christians. And it is marvellous that these noble
translators did not bethink themselves, when they vaunted the
antiquity of their version, that by this plea of antiquity more was
gained for the Greek edition, which was undoubtedly the first and
most ancient of all, than for this Latin Vulgate, and that by their
own shewing.
II. This is (as is commonly thought and most probable) that
very same version which Jerome afterwards corrected from the
Greek, by order of Damasus, as he writes in the preface to the
Evangelists, in the catalogue at the end, and in the 102nd Epistle.
I answer : First, they confess it to be by no means certain
and clear, that this Vulgate Latin edition of the new Testament is
altogether the same as that which Jerome corrected, since they say
that the fact rests upon common opinion and probability alone.
Now we, not doubtfully or only with some probable shew, but
most certainly, know that this Greek edition of the new Testament
is no other than the inspired and archetypal scripture of the
new Testament, commended by the apostles and evangelists to the
Christian church.
Secondly, Jerome s correcting the Latin edition from the Greek
originals sufficiently shews, that the authority of the Greek is
greater than that of the Latin edition. Jerome corrected the
Latin from the Greek ; but our Rhemists, on the contrary, deter
mine that the Greek should be corrected from the Latin.
III. Consequently, it is the same which Augustine so highly
praises and approves in a certain letter to Jerome, Ep. 10.
I answer : In the first place, this plea depends upon the same
opinion and conjecture as the preceding. Secondly, Augustine s
praise is not weighty enough to constitute an edition authentic.
He praised also the Italic and many others, but preferred the Greek
VIII.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 143
to all, and would have them all corrected and estimated by the
Greek. Thirdly, Augustine praised that edition, not as absolutely
authentic, but as more faithful than the rest.
IV. This, is that same edition which thenceforth was almost
always used in the church-offices, in sermons, in commentaries, in
the writings of the ancient fathers of the Latin church.
I answer : In the first place, for two hundred years after
Jerome, and more, it never obtained any singular prerogative and
authority, as we have already shewn. Secondly, 1 ask, Is it any
consequence, that, because the Latin fathers and writers have made
special use of this, it is therefore absolutely authentic and prefer
able to the Greek? Thirdly, Much more ought the Greek to be
concluded authentic, which the churches of the Greeks have always
used from the apostles times in their public liturgies, homilies, com
mentaries, and books.
V. The sacred council of Trent, for these and many other
very weighty reasons, hath defined this alone of all Latin trans
lations to be authentic.
I answer : In the first place, that Tridentine Synod hath no
authority with us. Secondly, What right had it to define this ?
Thirdly, It hath proposed no grounds of this decree, except this
only, that that edition had been for a long time received in the
church ; which reason, at least, every one must perceive to be
unworthy of such great divines. Fourthly, I desire to know whe
ther the council of Trent only commanded this Latin edition to be
considered the authentic one amongst Latin editions, or determined
it to be absolutely authentic ? For if it only preferred this one to
other Latin translations, that could be no reason to justify the
llhemists in not making their version of the new Testament from
the Greek ; since the council of Trent prefers this, not to the Greek
edition, but to other Latin translations. Do they, then, make both
this Latin and that Greek edition authentic, or this Latin only ?
Indeed, they express themselves in such a manner as not to deny
the authenticity of the Greek, while nevertheless they really hold
no edition of either old or new Testament authentic, save this Latin
Vulgate only. This is the judgment of these Rhemists who have
translated the new Testament from the Latin ; and this the Jesuits
defend most strenuously, maintaining that, where the Latin differs
from the Greek or Hebrew, we should hold by the Latin rather
than the Greek or Hebrew copies. And it is certain that this is
now the received opinion of the papists.
144 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
VI. It is, of all others, the weightiest, purest, most venerable
and impartial.
I answer : 1. That all these virtues must needs be still greater
in the Greek edition, which is that of the apostles and evangelists,
and, finally, of the Holy Ghost himself, than in the Latin, which
cannot derive the beginning of its credit and dignity higher than
from the time and person of Jerome. 2. In many places it is
absurd and erroneous, as will hereafter be shewn ; and therefore,
in such cases, destitute of weight, and majesty, and purity.
VII. It agrees so exactly and thoroughly with the Greek, in
regard both of the phrases and the words, that the fastidious here
tics have blamed it on that account as rude and unskilful.
I answer : 1. That it is no great praise to be rude and
unskilful. 2. If it deserves commendation for agreeing and cor
responding remarkably with the Greek, then it follows that the
Greek itself is still more deserving of commendation. 3. It differs
from the Greek in many places, as we shall see hereafter.
VIII. The adversaries themselves, and Beza in particular,
prefer this to all the rest. See his Preface to the new Testament,
published in the year 1556. And elsewhere he says, that the old
interpreter translated very religiously. Annot. in 1 Luc. v. 1.
I answer : Although Beza hath preferred it to other versions
in the translation of certain places, and said that the old interpreter
seems to have translated the sacred books with religious care ; yet it
never came into his mind to prefer that Latin edition to the Greek,
or to make it authentic, or pronounce that the Latin translator never
erred. Nay, in this very place he blames the old interpreter for
not understanding the difference between 7r\t]po&lt;popia and TTCTTOL-
Orjais. If Beza had thought this as perfect as they would have
it, he would never have published a new translation of his own.
IX. In other translations there is the greatest difference and
discordance.
I answer : 1. If it were agreed that this is better than all
other translations, what would that be to the purpose ? For it
does not therefore follow, either that the Latin is authentic, or that
the Ehemists ought to have translated the new Testament from
the Latin, and not from the Greek. 2. They cannot find so great
a difference between our versions, as there is between their Latin
Vulgate and the Greek edition. 3. Although some of our trans
lations differ in some places, yet those places are not numerous,
nor is the difference dangerous ; since we do not say that one should
VIII.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 145
stand by these translations as of themselves authentic, but appeal
to the originals alone as truly authentic.
X. It is not only better than all other Latin versions, but
preferable even unto the Greek edition itself in those places where
they differ.
I answer : 1. Hence it appears what value these men set
upon the Greek edition, who maintain that the Latin is superior to
it in all those places where any discrepancy is found. 2. How
false is this assertion we shall hereafter shew, and many other writers
have already often and copiously demonstrated.
CHAPTER IX.
WHEREIN THE ARGUMENTS ARE EXPLAINED WHEREBY THE LATIN
VULGATE EDITION IS PROVED NOT TO BE THE AUTHENTIC
SCRIPTURE.
IT remains that we should shew by good and solid reasons,
that this Latin Vulgate edition is not to be esteemed authentic
scripture. Upon which subject I might use many words, and
adduce many arguments; but I shall endeavour to cut off all
matters of inferior importance, and concern myself only with those
things which are fitted to the immediate cause and question.
The first argument. Jerome, who either made or amended
this edition, did not himself deem it authentic, although it was then
in a much purer state than it is at present. Nay, he left it to
his readers to choose in many places between different interpre
tations, being doubtful whether they were rightly understood and
rendered by himself. Sometimes he even ingenuously confesses
that he hath translated otherwise than the Hebrew verity required.
So Jonah iv. he translates "ivy/ 5 following Aquila, not " a gourd"
with the Septuagint ; whereas in his Commentary on Jonah he
teaches us that neither ivy nor gourd can be really denoted by
the word. " For," says he, " gourds and ivy are naturally prone
to creep upon the earth, and cannot gain any height without props
and stays to support them 1 ." But he testifies that the shrub
which the Lord prepared for Jonah supports itself by its own
[* Cucurbita et hedera hujus naturce sunt ut per terrain reptent, et absque
furcis vel adminiculis quibus innituntur altiora non appetant. T. vi. p. 426.]
r , 10
[WHITAKER.]
146 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
stem, and grows commonly in Palestine. If, therefore, Jerome
hath not ventured to defend that edition everywhere, and in some
places owns that it is very wide of the true sense of the Hebrew,
it follows that it is not to be taken for authentic. Assuredly
Jerome never even so much as dreamed, that a time would come
when the church would receive his translation for authentic scrip
ture. Since, therefore, our opponents ascribe this version to
Jerome, and deem it to be commended by his authority, it is
fair that in this question they should be ruled by the testimony
and judgment of Jerome, and learn from Jerome himself that it
is not authentic.
The second argument. If this Latin edition were authentic,
then the Latin church would have presently received it as authentic.
The validity of the consequence may be perceived from the follow
ing consideration: Jerome, as they say, translated the old Tes
tament, and corrected the new, at the request of Damasus. Where
fore, if he had made this Latin edition, and delivered it to the
church with the intention that it should everywhere be esteemed
authentic scripture in the Latin churches ; then it would have been
forthwith received and approved by the judgment of the church
and the order of the pontiff. But such was not the case. For
in the time of pope Gregory, who lived in the Latin church more
than two hundred years after Jerome, that version could not
maintain exclusive sway, even in the Roman church, or be esteemed
authentic, as is evident from Gregory s Preface to Job, c. v. If
then it was neither published to serve as authentic, nor then held
authentic when it was sounder and purer than it is at present, no
one can, without extreme injustice, require us to reverence and
follow it as authentic.
The third argument. Jerome himself, whom these men make
either the author or corrector of this edition, blames many things
in it. Therefore he by no means deemed it authentic. The ante
cedent hath been proved by many previous testimonies; and the
consequent needs no proof. For, if Jerome found and remarked
many errors in this edition, it is certain that it could not have been
regarded by him as either authentic or true. Now Jerome, in
his Traditions upon Genesis and other books, shews many faults
of this edition, which are still found in it. And, as to the answer
of our adversaries, that Jerome in his Commentaries judged some
things to be wrongly translated, which afterwards, when he came
to publish that Latin edition, he perceived to be quite correctly
IX.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 14?
rendered, and therefore did not change ; this pretence, I say, may
be easily refuted, if we will only remember that those Comment
aries upon the Prophets, in which he often blames this Vulgate
version, are later than that edition, as manifestly appears from
Jerome s own words at the end of the Catalogue 1 .
The fourth argument. Jerome was neither a prophet, nor en
dowed with a prophetic spirit. It is one thing to be a prophet,
and another to be an interpreter of prophetic writings. So Jerome
himself, in the Preface to the Pentateuch : " It is one thing to be
a prophet, and another to be an interpreter. In the former case,
the Spirit predicted future events ; in the latter, learning and
copious command of words translates what it understands 2 ." Hence
a conclusive argument may be formed. Since the Vulgate edition
is nothing more than a version, it is not of itself authentic or
inspired scripture. For it is the function of an interpreter to
translate the authentic scripture, not to make his own translation
authentic scripture. Now Jerome both might, and did err in
translating. That he might have erred no one doubts, and Au
gustine in his 8th Epistle to Jerome takes it for granted. That
he did err, Jerome himself ingenuously acknowledges in many
places. Nay, though we were to suppose that Jerome never erred
in translating, yet what answer can our adversaries give as to
the Vulgate Latin version of the Psalms, which is widely different
from the Hieronymian version ? Finally, what account can they
give of those parts of the Latin edition which are read in the
Latin Bibles from the Greek version of Theodotion, a man most
averse from the Christian faith ? Will they affirm that Theodotion
too, from whom they have received some of the fragmentary
pieces in their collection, as either interpreter or author, was en
dowed with a prophetic spirit? I trow not. Wherefore this
Latin edition, being put together by persons who both could and
did err, cannot possibly be the authentic word of God and inspired
scripture.
And, whereas our adversaries object that, although Jerome
was himself obnoxious to error, yet his version was approved by
the church ; I answer first, that our assertion is not only
that Jerome might have erred, but also that he hath committed
[ l (Vetus Testamentum) juxta Hebraicam transtuli .... multaque alia de
opere prophetali, quse mine habeo in manibus. T. n. p. 941.]
[ 2 Aliud est esse vatem, aliud esse interpretem. Ibi Spiritus ventura prse-
dixit; hie eruditio et yerborura copia ea quse intelligit transfert.]
102
148 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
great errors in this version, if it be his version ; and this assertion
we shall presently prove. Therefore if the church approved this
version, it approved very many errors of translation. Secondly,
the church hath not power of approving any man s translation,
however accurate, in such a manner as to pronounce it alone to be
authentic scripture, and preferable to the sacred originals them
selves. For authentic scripture must proceed immediately from
the Holy Ghost himself; and therefore Paul says that all scripture
is divinely inspired, 2 Tim. iii. 16. Now Jerome s translation is
not divinely inspired ; therefore it is not authentic scripture.
Thirdly, the church hath never approved nor received as authentic
this Latin edition before the very recent council of Trent. For
if the church had ever approved it before, so many learned and
catholic men would not have blamed this Latin version, as Lyra,
Paul of Bruges, Richard of Armagh, Valla, Eugubinus, Isidore
Clarius, John Isaac, Cajetan, Erasmus, Jacques De-Ferre, Ludo-
vicus Vives, Lucas of Bruges, and many more. The Latin church
did indeed use this version, because it was needful that Latin
churches should have some Latin edition of the scriptures; but it
never before made it authentic or canonical. Now first, in the
Tridentine synod, we are commanded to receive the old Latin
version as our authentic scripture. Whence we perceive that their
authentic scripture is only the version, such as it is, of Jerome and
others, one knows not whom. Their Moses, their prophets, their
apostles, their evangelists, yea, their Christ, is Jerome : for, in
receiving his writings as authentic, they attribute to him what
truly appertains to Moses, the prophets, the apostles, the evange
lists, and Christ.
The fifth argument. If God had permitted the scripture to
perish in the Hebrew and Greek originals, in which it was first
published by men divinely inspired, he would not have provided
sufficiently for his church and for our faith. From the prophetic
and apostolic scripture the church takes its origin, and the faith
derives its source. But whence can it be ascertained that these
are in all respects prophetic and apostolic scriptures, if the very
writings of the prophets and apostles are not those which we con
sult ? What reason can be alleged, why the authentic word of
God should perish in those languages in which it was first pub
lished, and become authentic in a new tongue, into which it was
translated by a man who was no prophet ? or why in the Latin,
rather than in any other language ?
IX.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 149
The sixth argument. The ancient fathers of the Latin church
did not all follow one edition, namely, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arno-
bius, Lactantius, Victorias, Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome
himself, Leo, Gregory, Bede. Therefore there was not then one
authentic edition through so many ages of the church. Which
since experience shews to be a cerCain fact, why now must Latins
have one authentic Latin edition ? It might rather seem to have
been more necessary then that there should have been one
authentic edition, because there were then more Latin versions
than there are now : for Augustine says that in his time they
were innumerable (Doct. Christ. Lib. n. c. 11) ; but those which
are now extant may be easily counted. Yet the council of Trent
willed that one out of many should be held authentic ; and Andra-
dius (Defen. Trid. Lib. iv.) says that the synod acted wisely in
determining that, out of the many which are now in men s hands,
one should become and be esteemed authentic. If this be a good
reason an adequate cause it was much more fit that there
should have been one authentic edition in those times in which
many more versions than now were everywhere in the hands of
men.
The seventh argument. I ask whether the council of Trent
made this Latin edition authentic, or only declared it to be so ?
The reason of this question is, because they say that they receive
the books of scripture from the church, not that they may be
come canonical and most holy, but that they may be so esteemed,
as we shall hear afterwards. Is this Latin edition therefore now
made by them authentic, or is it only declared to be authentic ?
If they say that it is now made authentic, it will follow that it was
not authentic before. Then by what right could they make a
non-authentic edition become authentic? In the same way it will
be lawful for them to convert a book, which is not sacred, into
sacred and canonical : which yet they profess not to arrogate to
themselves the power of effecting, But if they only declared this
edition authentic, let them tell us when it first began to be authentic.
For at first, as we have shewn, it was not authentic. It behoves
them therefore to let us know when, and from whom, it received
the privilege of authenticity, if they will not profess that it was
made authentic by themselves.
The eighth argument. The Latin Vulgate edition is in many
places utterly barbarous aud full of solecisms : whence we collect
that its author was very careless. I readily acknowledge that the
style of scripture is simple and unadorned ; and am so far from
150 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
blaming it, that I admire it rather as divine. But in the authen
tic original scriptures you shall never find such barbarity and
disgraceful solecisms as are everywhere occurring in the Latin
Vulgate. Gen. xxi. 26 : Non audivi prceter hodie. Gen. xlii. 13 :
Alius non est super, for super est. Ps. Ixvii. 20 : Benedictus
Dominus die quotidie. Ps. cxxv. 1 : In convertendo Dominus
captivitatem Sion facti sumus sicut consolati. Matt. xxii. : Neque
nubent neque nubentur. Matt. vi. : Nonne vos magis pluris estis
illis ? Matt. xx. : Films hominis non venit ministrari. Luc. vii. :
Lamentavimus vobis. Luc. xxi. : Omnis populus manicabat ad
eum. John xv. : Ut fructum plus afferat. Acts iii. : Poenitemini.
James i. : Deus intentator est malorum. These are expressed in
the original quite otherwise, and with sufficient purity and elegance.
Matt. xxii. 30 : oure yafj-ovaiv OUTC eKyaimi^ovTai. Matt. vi. 26 :
o v% v/ueT? fjiciXXov $ia(j)pT avTwv ; Matt. xx. 28 : o yios TOV
dvOpcoTrov OVK rj\0e ciaicovrjOrjvai d\\a cictKovrjaraii Luke vii. 32 :
eOprjvqaaiJLev VJLLIV. Luke xxi. 38 : Tray o Xaos wpOpi^e Trpos
CLVTOV. John xv. 2 : iva 7r\eiova KapTrov &lt;j)eprj. Acts iii. 19 :
fjiTavor]&lt;7aT. James i. 13 : o Geos cnreipaGros ecrrt TWV KctKcov.
In these Greek expressions there is no lack either of purity or of
elegance. But the Latin are such that nothing can be conceived
more barbarous or absurd. Assuredly the Holy Spirit is never
wont to speak so barbarously and foolishly. For though there be in
the holy scriptures some pendent sentences, and inversions, and ap
parent solecisms, and other things of that kind, yet the same may be
found in the most eloquent and approved authors ; so that nothing
occurs in the originals, as far as the style and diction are con
cerned, for which one cannot find a parallel in some approved
writer. But those Latin expressions are strange and unparalleled ;
nor did ever any man speak in this style, who knew or cared how
to speak. Jerome, in his letter to Paulinus, says that this
rudeness, which is found in versions of the scriptures, hath occurred
partly through the fault of the translators. It is a fault therefore
to translate foolishly and awkwardly what is capable of being
neatly rendered ; and the examples adduced shew it to be a fault
into which this interpreter hath fallen. It is true indeed that
every thing, especially in sacred writings, must not be brought
strictly to the rules of Donatus 1 , as Gregory reminds us in his
preface to Job : but the scriptures, though never superstitiously
exact, are everywhere clear and pure, and, I will add too, elo
quent. So writes Augustine (Doct. Christ. Lib. iv. c. 6) excel-
t 1 A famous grammarian.]
IX.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 151
lently well : " Here perhaps some one may ask whether our
writers are only to be styled wise, or to be called eloquent also ?"
Which question Augustine answers thus : " Where I understand
them, nothing can seem not only wiser but more eloquent than
they are. And I venture to say, that all who rightly understand
what they say, understand at the same time that they ought to
have said it in no other manner 2 ." He observes that there is one
kind of eloquence which becomes youth, and another which is suit
able to age ; and that nothing, which is not suited to the person of
the speaker, can deserve to be called eloquence : in a word, that
there is a certain kind of eloquence suitable to divine writings, and
that the sacred writers possess this kind of eloquence. Any other
would not have become them, nor this any other writers.
The ninth argument. The Papists themselves maintain that the
originals are useful ; but the points of utility which they enumerate
prove the originals to be even necessary, and that the original
scripture in both testaments is more authentic than the Latin
edition. Bellarmine tells us of four occasions upon which we may
recur to the Hebrew and Greek originals. 1. Where there seems
to be a mistake of the transcribers in the Latin copies ; of which
he produces some examples, and of which very many might be
produced. 1 Sam xix. 24, the Vulgate had for many ages,
Cecinit nudus iota ilia die. If you look at the Hebrew original,
you will see that one should read cecidit, not cecinit. Yet they
persist in retaining the latter (cecinit) in the text, and write cecidit
in the margin. Ecclus. xxiv. 30, the old edition hath, and hath
had this long time back, Ego quasi fluvius Dorix. If you ask
what river that is, Rabanus tells you in his commentary upon
this place, that there is a river in Armenia which is called the
Dorix. But the Louvain editors have noted that we should read
vorax ; and Bellarmine corrects it from the Greek, Ego quasi
fluvius Dioryx. For " Siwpvj;," says he, " signifies a trench
dug from a river to irrigate the ground." Be it so : but what
Latin writer ever used this term? or what are we to think of
[ 2 Hie aliquis forsitan quaerit, utrum auctores nostri sapientes tan-
tummodo, an eloquentes etiam nuncupandi sunt. Quee quidem qusestio apud
meipsum, et apud eos qui mecum quod dico sentiunt, facillime solvitur.
Nam ubi eos intelligo, non solum nihil eis sapientius, verumetiam nihil
cloquentius mihi videri potest. Et audeo dicere omnes, qui recte intelligunt
quod illi loquuntur, simul intelligere non eos aliter loqui debuisse. T. in.
p. 88. Bassan. 1797.]
152 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
such a Latin version? or, if this be the true reading, why is not
the old one corrected, but even still, when the error hath been
detected, left to remain in their books ? Ecclus. xlv. 6 : it is read
in the Vulgate, and so in the old missals, Dedit ei cor ad prce-
cepta. But the Louvain editors have corrected the place thus,
coram prcecepta ; and Bellarmine approves that emendation, since
the Greek exhibits /card TrpocrtoTrov 1 , and says that it is now so
corrected in the new missals. But why is it not amended in the
Bibles ? Is this your solicitude, to have your missals more correct
than your Bibles ? So again the old books exhibit that place in
Psal. xli., ad Deum fontem vivum 2 : but Bellarmine thinks it
might safely be changed to ad Deum fortem vivum, as is plainly
required by the evidence of the Hebrew and Greek copies. Yet,
though this be certainly the case, they still retain fontem in the
text, and only set fortem in the margin. Again, Deut. iv. 23 3 , the
old Latin books have sulphure et solis ardore comburens ; whereas
the Hebrew text shews that the true reading is salis, not solis :
which error I am surprised that the Louvain editors did not per
ceive, and correct at least in the margin. An infinite number of
other like examples might be given ; and Canus (Lib. n. c. 15)
hath adduced many in which it is obviously evident that the Latin
edition is corrupt, and requires to be corrected from the Hebrew
and Greek originals. Do we not hence see that the original edi
tion possesses greater purity and authority than this Vulgate
Latin ? The Latin books must be corrected from the originals,
not the originals from the Latin edition : therefore the Latin edi
tion is less authentic than the original scripture.
Bellarmine s second occasion is, when the Latin copies present
such various readings as to make it impossible to determine which
is the true. For example, in Joshua v. some copies of the Vul
gate edition have 4 , Quibus juravit ut ostenderet eis terram ;
others, ut non ostenderet, with a directly contrary sense. The
latter, says Bellarmine, is said to be the truer, because in the
[} Kal e8(OKv avTo&gt; Kara 7rp6(TQ)7rov eVroXas 1 , vopov fatjs KOI cirtOTqfjajs. Ec-
clus. xlv. 5, ed. Grabe.]
[ 2 Ps. xlii. 2, in the Hebrew? TT /^/. In the Greek, npbs rbv Qebv rbv
[ 3 This is a mistake. The true reference is Deut. xxix. 22, where the
Hebrew is, HEnitf rf?B
[4 ver. 6. DriiniDn nvr
IX
.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 153
Hebrew text the negative is constantly added. Why then do
their books retain the former, which they themselves know and
confess to be false ? So again, Josh. xi. 5 , some copies have, Non
fuit civitas quce non se traderet ; some, on the contrary, quce se
traderet. And this is affirmed to be the truer reading, because it
agrees with the Hebrew and is required by the context. So
Luke i. 6 in the common books we read, JRedemptionem plebis
suce : but it is evident that we should read plebi suce, because
the Greek is rw \aw avrov. Thus they allow that their Latin
edition, which they determine to be alone authentic, hath in it
many things not only futile, but even utterly wrong, and that it
may be judged of and corrected by the originals. Meanwhile,
however, errors of this kind are not removed, but preserved in
their Bibles. Who, then, will not much rather trust the originals
than this Vulgate edition ?
The third occasion is, when the Latin copies have something
ambiguous, either in the expression or in the sense. Bellarmine
gives some examples : one is taken from Luke ii. 7 , Hominibus
bonce voluntatis. The words, bonce voluntatis, may be referred,
he thinks, either to homines, or to pax, but more correctly to the
latter ; so that the sense shall be, " on earth peace to men, peace
(I say) of the good- will of God towards men." For evSoKia is the
good-will of God towards men. If this be true, as Bellarmine justly
deems, our Rhemists have erred grossly, in gathering from this
place a proof of the freedom of the human will.
Fourthly, we may recur to the original, in order to discover
the full energy and propriety of the terms : which opens to us a
very wide door. For in the well-spring every thing is more
emphatic than in the streams of the translations ; which not a
little illustrates their inferior excellence and dignity.
Melchior Canus, Lib. n. c. 15, sets forth many advantages which
attend a knowledge of the originals. First, when we dispute with
infidels. Secondly, when we wish to explain the peculiar emphasis
of terms. Thirdly, to help us to a number of meanings. Fourthly,
to give us an acquaintance with the idioms, phrases, and proverbs,
of a foreign tongue. Fifthly, to correct errors. Sixthly, to shew
us the meaning of some places which cannot be explained without a
knowledge of languages. Seventhly, to escape the doubtfulness
[ 5 ver. 19.]
[ 6 V. 68, fTToirjo-c \vrpaxnv rw Aao&gt; avrov. ]
[* v. 14, where the Vulgate reads
154 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
and ambiguity of the Latin. Eighthly, to give us right interpre
tations of some terms in common use, as Anathema, Maranatha, and
the like. That all these advantages may be obtained from the
originals, they allow. Consequently, I may argue thus from their
own confession : That edition which is corrupt, faulty, ambiguous,
futile, and neither explains the meaning nor teaches the majesty of
the Holy Spirit, nor hath light enough in itself to illustrate the
diction and sense of scripture, is not authentic. Now the Latin
Vulgate edition is such, by the ingenuous confession of our adver
saries themselves. Therefore it is not authentic : and consequently
the Hebrew and Greek are authentic ; because not only are they
free from those faults and disadvantages with which the Latin is
replete, and adorned with all those privileges which are by no
means conceded to the Latin, but even they, who press the Latin
edition upon us as authentic, are compelled to have recourse to the
Hebrew and Greek, and appeal to them as to a superior judge.
And now I would desire to put this question to them : Since
the Louvain divines have found many mistakes and faults in their
Latin Bibles, and have indicated them in the margin, what reading
is it which they determine to be authentic the old one of the text,
or the new one of the margin ? If the old, why have they branded
it, and changed it in their missals ? If the new, why do they not
receive it into the text, but leave it to stand, as it were, without
upon the threshold ? I will make the matter plain by a single
example. In Proverbs xvi. 11, the old copies of the Latin edition
have this reading ; " Pondus et statera judicia Dei sunt, et opera
ejus omnes lapides seculi." They now perceive that it should be
read, " et opera ejus omnes lapides sacculi;" for the Hebrew word
denotes a scrip, or purse, or little bag 1 . Here there is no doubt
that the reading seculi is erroneous. Yet the author of the Com
mentary upon Proverbs, which appears amongst the works of
Jerome, reads seculi, and explains "the stones of eternity" to
mean just men and strong in faith. No doubt a most brave expo
sition ! Innumerable similar instances might be found in Latin
authors, who, for the last thousand years, and from the time that
this version began to prevail in the Latin churches, deluded by
the mistakes and faults of this edition, have invented absurd opi
nions and interpretations in consequence. So that passage in Wis
dom, xii. 15, which the Louvain editors now read thus in their
IX.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 155
Bibles, " Qui non debet puniri, condemnare exterum aestimas a
virtute tua 2 ," was formerly read thus : " Qui non debet puniri,
condernnas, et exterum aestimas a tua virtute." For Gregory upon
Job (Lib. in. c.,11) understands it of God the Father, who deli
vered up to death Christ, the most righteous of all men, and
deserving of no punishment. Thus this fault hath remained more
than a thousand years in the Latin books. Wherefore, if that
reading be false (as it certainly is), then the Latin church hath
followed a false, and consequently by no means authentic, reading,
in an infinite number of places, for of such places the number is
infinite. So Canticles ii. at the end, the old books have " Super
montes Bethel." But the Louvain critics bid us read Bether for
Bethel ; which is confirmed also by the Hebrew verity. Yet Gre
gory, a thousand years ago, read the text just as it used to be read
in their corrupt copies ; from which circumstance we may perceive
the great antiquity of that corruption. For, in his Commentary
upon the Canticles, he interprets Bethel in this place to mean the
church, as that in which God dwells. Thus almost all the Latin
expositors read and expound that place, in which, nevertheless,
unless by means of a corruption, no mention of Bethel can be
found.
The tenth argument. That scripture which was authentic for
the old Testament before Christ, and for both old and new six
hundred years after Christ, should now also be deemed authentic
by us. Now the Hebrew edition of the old, and the Greek of the
new Testament, was always held the authentic scripture of God in
the Christian churches for six hundred years after Christ. This,
therefore, ought to be received by us also as authentic scripture.
If they doubt the major, we must ask them, Whether the church
hath changed its authentic scripture, or hath not rather preserved,
and commended to all succeeding generations, that which was in
truth authentic from the very first? If it lost that which was
published by the prophets and apostles, who can defend that neg
ligence, who excuse so enormous a sacrilege? If it lost it not,
then let it deliver to us the writings of the prophets and apostles,
and approve them by its testimony as the authentic word of God ;
not substitute for this divinely-promulgated scripture a mere trans
lation of it into Latin, not made by either prophets or apostles ;
nor persuade us that such a document as this is the authentic word
[ 2 In the Greek, rbv ^rj o^)iXoj/Ta Ko\a&lt;r0r)vai KaraStmo-at aXkorptov q
rfjs (rfjs
156 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
of God. In which proceeding they really assume to themselves
the privilege of doing that which they allow themselves incompe
tent to do. For those who make scripture authentic, make it
canonical ; since it is only authentic scripture that is canonical, and
it is canonical, because it is authentic. Now they have made their
scripture authentic, forasmuch as it was not authentic previously.
Therefore they make scripture canonical ; which yet they confess
not to be placed in the power and judgment of the church.
To return to the argument. I suppose that no one doubts the au
thenticity of the Hebrew edition of the old Testament in Christ s time.
But now it may be demonstrated by many testimonies of the fathers,
that the Hebrew edition of the old, and the Greek of the new
Testament, was held authentic in the church for many ages after
Christ. Jerome, in his book against Helvidius, writes thus : " We
must suppose that the water of the fountain ran much clearer than
that of the stream 1 ." The same author, in his letter to Sunnia and
Fretella, observes : " As in the new Testament we recur to the
fountain of the Greek language, in which the new Testament is
written, so in the old Testament we recur to the Hebrew verity 2 ."
So, in his letter to Marcella, at the end of the second volume : "I
wish to recal the corruption of the Latin copies to the Greek ori
ginal 3 ." And in his Preface to the Pentateuch he rejects as absurd
the opinion of those persons, who said that the Latin copies were
more correct than the Greek, and the Greek than the Hebrew.
To the same effect in his Commentary on Zechariah, chap. viii. :
"We are compelled to have recourse to the Hebrews, and to seek
certain knowledge of the truth from the fountain rather than from
the streamlets 4 ." Yea, in his Epistle to Vitalis he writes that he
was wont to betake himself to the Hebrew verity, as a sort of
citadel and fortress 5 . To this we may add the consideration, that
[! Multo purior manare credenda est fontis unda quam rivi.]
[ 2 Sicut in novo Testamento .... recurrimus ad fontem Grseci sermonis,
quo novum scriptum est instrumentum; ita in veteri Testamento ad Hebraicam
veritatem confugimus. T. i. p. 637.]
[ 3 Latinorum codicum vitiositatem ad Grsecam originem volui revocare.
T. I. p. 132.]
[ 4 Cogimur ad Hebrseas recurrere, et scientise veritatem de fonte magis
quam de rivulis quserere. T. vi. p. 851.]
[5 Si quidem in historiis aliter haberent LXX. interpretes, aliter Hebraica
veritas ; confugere poteramus ad solita prsesidia, et arcem linguae tenere ver-
naculee. T. i. p. 434.]
IX.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 157
Damasus urged Jerome to the task of correcting the new Testa
ment from the Greek ; that prelate being sufficiently aware that
the Greek deserved to be preferred by a great deal to all the
Latin copies. Much to the same purpose may be found in Am
brose, de Spiritu Sancto, Lib. n. c. 6 6 , and in his book, de Incarn.
Domin. Sacram. c. 8 7 : also in Augustine de Doctr. Christ. Lib. n.
c. 7 8 , and elsewhere. From Augustine, Gratian hath transcribed
in his Decree what we read Dist. 9, cap. Ut veterum : " As the
correctness of the old books is to be estimated by the Hebrew
volumes, so the truth of the new requires the standard of the
Greek text 9 ." Also, in his City of God (Lib. xv. c. 13), Augustine
makes a large defence of the Jews, and reminds us, that " we
must not trust a translation so implicitly as the language from
which interpreters made that translation into a different one 10 ."
Ludovicus Vives thus comments upon that chapter : " The same
answer may be given to those who object that the MSS. of the old
Testament have been falsified and corrupted by the Jews, and
those of the new by the Greeks, to prevent us from seeking the
true sense of the sacred books from those originals 11 ."
But our adversaries allow that what the fathers write of the
authority of the originals was true indeed formerly ; and they
would not deny that we ought to do the same, if the Hebrew and
Greek originals were still uncontaminated. But they maintain
that those originals are now corrupted, and that therefore the
Latin streamlet is deserving of more regard than the ancient well-
spring. Hence it is now the earnest effort of the popish theolo
gians, and the champions of the council of Trent, to persuade us
of the depravation of the original scriptures. In the conduct of
which argument, however, some are more keen and impudent than
[ 6 Lib. n. c. 5. 42. T. VI. Paris. 1839. p. 341.]
[ 7 82. p. 475, ut supra. Ita enim et in Grsecis codicibus invenimus,
quorum potior auctoritas est.]
[ 8 c. 13. ed. Bruder. Lipsise, 1838.]
[ 9 Ut veterum librorum fides de Hebrseis voluminibus examinanda est,
ita novorum Grseci sermonis normam desiderat. Decret. p. 1. Dist. ix. c. vi.
The title does indeed ascribe these words to Augustine, but the note, more
correctly, to Jerome, Epist. 28. ad Lucmium Bseticum.]
[ 10 Ei linguse potius credatur, unde est in aliam per interpretes facta
translatio.]
[ n Hoc idem responderi potest his qui falsatos corruptosque et ab Hebrseis
codices veteris instrumenti, et a Grsecis novi objiciunt, ne veritas sacrorum
librorum ex illis fontibus petatur. Ludoy. Vives, Annot. p. 459. ed. Froben.]
158 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
others. For Lindanus, De optimo Genere Inter., Lib. i. c. 11, and
Canus, Lib. u. c. 13, pretend most slanderously that the originals
are utterly corrupted. But others come to much more moderate
and equitable conclusions. Neither party, however, can do any
thing really serviceable to the cause of the authentic authority
of the Latin edition, until they can shew us that not only the
originals are corrupt in some places, but even generally more
corrupt than the Latin copies ; which is beyond what any papist
hitherto hath hoped to demonstrate. Bellarmine is of the number
of those who treat the originals with some respect; and conse
quently he refutes the opinion of Lindanus and Canus. Neverthe
less, lest he should seem not to approve the Tridentine Decree, he
maintains that there are some corruptions in the original text. Let
us see what sort of corruptions he speaks of.
In order, then, to shew that the Hebrew originals are not
absolutely pure, Bellarmine proposes five places, which he thinks
undoubtedly corrupt. The first place is Is. ix. 6, where he says
that we should read, " He shall be called Wonderful ;" as Calvin
also contends. But the Hebrew text not only does not exhibit
jikkare, [N"]|^] "he shall be called," but does exhibit jikra, [iOjp?]
"he shall call." I answer; first, as to the sense, it makes no differ
ence whether we read, " His name shall be called Wonderful," or
" He shall call (i. e. God the Father shall call) his name Wonderful."
So Junius and Tremellius have rendered it, in conformity with the
present Hebrew reading, "vocat;" which they would not have
done, if they had supposed that there was any important difference
in the sense. Secondly, the opinion of some, that we should rather
read in the passive than in the active, does not prove the originals
to be corrupted. The points indeed require the latter reading,
but the letters will bear either. Thirdly, the Hebrew doctors tell
us, as Vatablus observes upon this place 1 , that verbs of the third
person are often used impersonally by the Hebrews, as " he shall
call " [one shall call], for " he shall be called."
The second place is Jerem. xxiii. 6, in which we should read,
as Calvin thinks also, " This is his Name, whereby they shall call
f 1 So Buxtorf, Thes. Gramm. Lib. n. c. 10. "Tertise persons verba
ssepissime quoque usurpantur indefinite et quasi impersonaliter, nullo nomi
native expresso." He cites Is. ix. 6, Jerem. xxiii. 6, as instances. There are
some remarks upon this idiom, both very curious and very valuable, in
Gataker, de Stylo N. T. pp. 6672. London, 1648. Cf. Nordheimer s
Hebrew Syntax, 763, New York, 1841.]
IX.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 159
him, The Lord our Righteousness." But the Hebrew text reads
constantly in the singular, " he shall call," not " they shall call." I
answer, in the first place, That we plainly perceive this place not
to be corrupt from the circumstance, that of old in Jerome s time
it was read exactly as it is read at present. For Jerome left it
optional with us to read it either in the singular or the plural ;
and the Seventy, before Jerome, rendered the word /caXeW,
" he shall call." Secondly, the Hebrew word may be rendered,
" they shall call," as Yatablus, Pagninus, and Arias Montanus
have translated it. Thirdly, if we read "He shall call," as
our Hebrew text invites us, the sense will be neither impious
nor unsuitable, as is plain from the annotations of Junius and
Tremellius.
The third place is Ps. xxii. 17. All Christians read, " They
pierced my hands and my feet." But the Hebrew MSS. have not
Cam, [JR3] "they pierced," but Caari, [n3] "as a Lion." I
answer, that this is the only specious indication of corruption in
the Hebrew original ; yet it is easy to protect this place also
from their reproaches. For, first, learned men testify that
many Hebrew copies are found in which the reading in Cam ;
Andradius, Defens. Trid. Lib. iv., and Galatinus, Lib. vm. c. 17.
And John Isaac writes that he had himself seen such a copy,
in his book against Lindanus, Lib. n. ; and the Masorites them
selves affirm that it was so written in some corrected copies 2 .
Secondly, in those books which have this reading, the Masorites 3
tell us that it is not to be taken in the common acceptation :
whence it plainly appears that nothing was farther from their minds
than a design to corrupt the passage. Thirdly, the place is now
no otherwise read than it was formerly before Jerome s time.
For the Chaldee Paraphrast hath conjoined both readings 4 , and
the Masorites testify that there is a twofold reading of this place.
Jerome, too, in his Psalter read in the Hebrew Caari, as our
books have it, though he rendered it "fixerunt." So that it
can never be proved, at least from this place, that the Hebrew
originals were corrupted after the time of Jerome.
The fourth place is Ps. xix. 5, where the Hebrew copies have,
[ 2 In the textual Masora on Numb. xxiy. 9, 11*0
ITO-l
[3 The smaller Masora on Ps. xxii. 17, &lt; Ot^&gt; nfil j^ftp 1-]
[ 4 ^m TN rmtf3 -pri rTO:D. "They pierced, like a lion, my
hands and my feet."]
160 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
" their line 1 went into all the earth ;" whereas the Septuagint render
it, &lt;p06yyo&lt;$ aurcov, "their sound;" and Paul hath approved that
reading, Rom. x. 18. I answer with Genebrard, in his Scholia
upon the passage, that the Hebrew term does indeed denote a
line, but the Septuagint regarded the general sense, and were
followed by the apostle. For that line, or (as Tremellius trans
lates it) delineation of the heavens, that is, that frame and
structure of the heavenly orbs, smoothed as it were by the rule,
proclaims the infinite power and wisdom of the divine artist.
The fifth place is Exod. chap, ii., in which this whole sentence
is wanting : " He begat another also, and called his name Eliezer,
saying, The God of my father hath helped me, and delivered me
from the hand of Pharaoh 2 ." 1 answer, that in this place it is the
Latin rather than the Hebrew copies that are corrupt. For the
asterisk which the Latin editions, even that of Louvain, prefix
to these words, is a brand which shews that the whole sentence
should be removed from the Latin books ; and this the more learned
and candid of the papists themselves confess. For so Cajetan
writes in his commentary upon that place : " This whole paragraph
about the second son is superfluous 3 ."
These then are the passages which Bellarmine was able to find
fault with in the originals ; and yet in these there is really nothing
to require either blame or correction. But, even though we should
allow (which we are so far from doing, that we have proved the
contrary), that these were faulty in the original, what could our
adversaries conclude from such an admission ? Would it follow that
the Hebrew fountain was more corrupt than the Latin streamlets,
cr that the Latin edition was authentic ? Not, surely, unless it
were previously assumed, either that canonical books of scripture
cannot be erroneously copied sometimes by transcribers, or that
it is not very easy for us to discover many more errors in the
Latin edition which ought not, and cannot be defended, as we
shall hear presently.
Here indeed the Jesuit hath betrayed the papal cause. For,
to maintain the reasonableness of the Tridentine decree, we must
[ x D*lp . See Pococke in his Appendix to Maimonidis Porta Mosis, c. iv.
pp. 4751.]
[ 2 Alium quoque genuit, et vocavit nomen ejus Eliezer, dicens, Deus patris
mei auxiliatus est mihi, et liberavit me e manu Pharaonis. Exod. ii. 22.]
[ 3 Tota ista particula de secundo filio superflua est. Cajet. in Penta
teuch, p. 82. 2. Romee. 1531.]
IX.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 1G I
assert that the Hebrew text is utterly corrupt, and the Latin
uncorrupted ; which Lindanus and Canus endeavour to do ; and
that, constrained by the authority of this Tridentine decree : but
Bellarmine is so far from doing this, that he censures Lindanus and
Canus for saying that the Hebrew originals have been corrupted
by the Jews ; which thesis, although these men assert it with
strenuous earnestness, hath been long since exploded by the senate
(so to speak) of more learned and sound-minded papists. Sixtus
Senensis, Lib. vin. c. 2, delivers his opinion thus : "It cannot be said
that the divine scriptures of the old Testament have been falsified
by the malice either of Jews or Christians 4 :" which he presently de
monstrates by many arguments. We might adduce similar passages
from other popish authors. Now then, if the originals of sacred scrip
ture have not been so disgracefully corrupted by any malice of Jews
or adversaries, as some persons have ignorantly suspected ; and if no
mistakes have crept into the originals, but such as may casually
be introduced into any book, (which our opponents expressly allow ;)
why, I pray, did not the Tridentine fathers rather command
that the originals should be purified with the greatest care and
diligence than that the muddy stream of the Latin edition should
be preferred to the fountain, and become authentic ? For they who
assert the Latin to be authentic scripture, close up the Hebrew and
Greek fountains. Indeed these men are unwilling to seem to do
this ; and yet they do it nevertheless, when they determine the
originals not to be authentic. Thus, therefore, I frame my argu
ment : If the originals are not authentic, it must be because they
are corrupt. But they are not corrupt : therefore they are
authentic. Upon the major we shall have no dispute. For what
other reason can be assigned for denying, that books which were
authentic once, should still be so, and be so esteemed at pre
sent ? As to the minor, if they answer that they are corrupt ;
I demand, whether by the deliberate malice of adversaries, or
by chance ? If they say the former, what adversaries do they
mean ? In the case of the old Testament they can dream of none
except the Jews. Now the Jews are, as you have heard, acquitted
by the very papists, and by Bellarmine himself, and are indeed
wholly free from blame. For when could they have made these
corruptions? Neither before Christ, nor for 400 years after
Christ. For then Christ and the doctors of the church would have
[ 4 Dici non potest divinas veteris Testament! scripturas aut Judaeorum
aut Christianorum malignitate falsatas. p. 613. Paris, 1610.]
r i n
LW-HITAKER.J
162 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
blamed them upon that score ; whereas, on the contrary, they praise
their fidelity and diligence in preserving the originals, and call them
the book-keepers (capsarii) of the scriptures l . Besides, if the Jews had
wished to corrupt the original scriptures, they would have laid their
sacrilegious hands specially upon those places which concern Christ
and confirm the faith. But in those places these fountains run so clear
that one feels no lack : nay, they sometimes run far clearer than the
Latin streams. For instance, in Psalm ii. the Latin copies have, Am-
plectimini disciplinam ; which reading says nothing emphatical of
Christ. But the Hebrew original leads us at once to the Son of
God, and celebrates his far-extended sway over all : " Kiss the
Son." The same may be affirmed of many other passages. John
Isaac, the Jew, in his second book against Lindanus, writes that
more than two hundred arguments against Jewish opinions may be
drawn more strongly from the Hebrew text than from the Latin
translation. To the same effect Andradius (Defens. Lib. iv.):
" Those who handle the Hebrew text with piety and religious care,
meet in it with much larger testimonies to Christ than in the Latin
and Greek 2 ." This was testified long ago also by Jerome, in his
74th Epistle to Marcella 3 . But if they say that the originals are
only corrupted by some accident, we too may affirm the same, and
with much more justice, of their own Latin version : for such
accidental causes extend no less to the Latin than to the Hebrew
and Greek books.
The eleventh argument. The Latin Vulgate edition is most
certainly and most plainly corrupt. And the corruptions I speak of
are not casual, or slight, or common errors, such as the careless
ness of copyists often produces in books ; but errors deeply rooted
in the text itself, important and intolerable. Hence is drawn the
weightiest argument against the authority of this edition. Upon
this subject many excellently learned men, even of the popish party,
have written, Valla, Isaac, Erasmus (if indeed they rank him in
their number at all), and Clarius, whom Canus censures most
severely upon this account : but the thing is certain and manifest.
Yet here the Jesuit, who hitherto did not dare to accuse the
Hebrew originals, toils hard to save the credit of the Latin edition,
t 1 E. g. Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. xli. n. 14. T. iv. Contr. Faust. L. xii.
c. 23. T. vm. &c.]
[ 2 Qui Hebrsea pie et religiose tractant, multo in illis ampliora de Christo
testimonia quam in Latinis Grsecisque offendunt.J
[ 3 T. i. p. 150. Ep. 32.]
IX,] QUESTION THE SECOND. 163
and is large in his replies to Chemnitz, Calvin, and others. In
which task he has no more formidable adversary than himself.
For, unless the Hebrew and Greek originals be most foully corrupt,
it follows that this Latin edition is most foully corrupt, inasmuch as
it differs widely in all the books from those originals. Who does
not see from this that either the originals are corrupted, or the
Latin Vulgate edition is full of innumerable errors ? For, where the
difference and opposition of the readings is so great as is actually
found between the originals and the Latin edition, it cannot be said
or conceived that every thing is sound and uncorrupted. Bellarmine
therefore cannot possibly defend them both together ; and he must
necessarily confess either the Hebrew original of the old, and the
Greek of the new Testament, or else the Latin edition in both Tes
taments, to labour under most wretched depravation. For whoever
will compare the Latin with the originals, shall find almost every
where a remarkable discordance. Were I to go in detail through all
the errors of this edition, I should never make an end, and should
weary your attention with a vain prolixity. You may spend your
leisure in reading what others have written upon the subject. It
shall suffice for me to discharge what my duty requires, and to lay
before you some faults of this edition, from which it will plainly appear
that it is really corrupt and erroneous. And, though I might bring
forward many passages, and follow the regular order of the several
books and chapters, I shall prefer to tread in the steps of Bellarmine,
and examine his defence of certain places. He first proposes
severally and defends the faults of the Vulgate edition of the old
Testament which had been censured by Chemnitz, then those by
Calvin in the Psalms, lastly those by others in the Latin edition of
the new Testament. These let us now examine, and, as occasion
offers, interpose a few remarks.
CHAPTER X.
WHEREIN CERTAIN CORRUPT PLACES IN THE VULGATE EDITION OF
THE OLD TESTAMENT ARE SET FORTH.
THE first place is Gen. iii. 4 : Ipsa conteret caput tuum. So it
is wrongly and corruptly read in the Vulgate. For the reading
[4 ver. 15.
112
161 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
ought to be Ipse or Ipsum, so as to make the reference to the Seed
of the woman, not to the woman herself. Bellarmine affirms that
it is not improbable that the true reading is Ipsa, and that many
of the ancients read so ; and that, as to the verb, which is in the
Hebrew of the masculine gender, being coupled with a noun in the
feminine, we must consider that there is a great mystery contained
in that construction namely, that the woman crushes the serpent s
head, not by herself but by her Son. However, he hath omitted
to notice this mystery in the Sartorian edition.
I answer. Though all the fathers were to say that we should
read Ipsa, yet it should by no means be admitted or approved.
For the Hebrew copies constantly read Hu; the Septuagint exhibits
auros ; the Chaldee Paraphrase confirms the same reading ; and
lastly, some copies of the Vulgate edition retain Ipse, some Ipsum.
Finally, the very drift of the sentence requires that we should
understand it of the Seed of the woman, not of the woman.
What woman could crush the serpent s head ? Was it Mary ? I
am well aware that this is what is said by them. But how? When
she bore Christ ? But to bear Christ is not to crush the head of
the serpent: to give birth to him by whom the serpent s head is
crushed is one thing, and to crush the head of the serpent is another.
Was it when she believed in Christ 1 ? But this applies to all be
lievers. Christ therefore, and Christ only, is he who by his power
could crush and destroy the head of the infernal serpent, and rescue
and deliver us out of his jaws. Indeed it is wonderful that this first
promise of our redemption, upon which the whole safety of the
human race depends, should not have been more diligently cared
for by these men. If they had been as solicitous as they ought for
the salvation of men, they would never have permitted its founda
tion to have been so perilously and impiously shaken. Augustine
indeed, De Gen. ad Liter. Lib. n. c. 36 2 , reads the whole passage
corruptly, Ipsa tibi servabit caput : but Cyprian reads Ipse in
his Second Book to Quirinus 3 ; and before him Irena3us, Lib. in.
[ l Salmeron however determines, " Christum Matrem suam prope crucem
vocasse, ut ipsa Mater Filium suum in sacrificium Patri seterno pro toto
mundo offerret, ut Abraham filium suum Isaac ex obedientia offerre voluit."
Opp. T. x. Tract. 41. p. 933. cited by Glass. Philol. S. p. 693. (Amstel. 1694.)]
[ 2 So also Enarr. in Ps. ciii. T. iv. pp. 1668 9, and elsewhere. The
reading servabit is from the Septuagint r^orei. See Gesenius in voc. S)J)lJ.]
[ 3 Testim. adv. Judeeos, n. 9. p. 37. Hoc semen prredixerat Deus de
muliere procedere, quod calcaret caput Diaboli .... ipse tuum observabit
caput.]
X.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 165
c. 77 4 ; and Leo the pope of Rome interprets this place of the Seed
of the woman, Serm. 2 De Nativitate Domini 5 . And that this is
the true reading, Jerome teaches us in his Questions upon Genesis :
so that either the Vulgate edition is not Jerome s, or Jerome hath
contradicted himself. Chrysostom sometimes seems to read Ipsa;
but Philip Montanus hath shewn that this is the fault of his
translator. Canus, Lib. n. c. 15, acknowledges that there is a
manifest error in this place. To the same effect Andradius, Defens.
Lib. iv., and Cajetan 6 , upon the three Chapters of Genesis, writes
plainly that this is not spoken of the woman, but of the Seed of the
woman. Isidore Clarius hath restored Ipsum in his Bible ; and
John Benedictus, in his Scholia upon this place, says that we should
not read Ipsa but Ipsum, so as to understand it of the Seed.
Wherefore to defend this reading of the Vulgate edition is to excuse
a manifest error, and to contradict a plain truth.
The second place is Gen. vi., which is read thus in the Vulgate
edition: Cuncta cogitatio cordis est intenta ad malum. The
Hebrew would require : Figmentum cordis ejus tantummodo
malum omni die 1 . Bellarmine says, in the first place, that the sense
is the same.
I answer. Although this were true, it would not amount to a
just defence. For it behoves a translator of scripture not merely
to take care that he do not corrupt the meaning, but also, as far
as it is at all possible, not to depart a hand s breadth from the
words ; since many things may lie under cover in the words of the
Holy Spirit, which are not immediately perceived, and yet contain
important instruction. But in this place the sense is changed.
For it is one thing to be intent on evil, and another to be evil, and
only evil. For it is a lighter thing to be propense towards evil, than
to be already actually evil. Besides the Vulgar translator says that
"every thought of man s heart is intent on evil:" as if the Holy
Spirit only blamed the thoughts ; whereas he condemns both the
thoughts and the principle and source of all the thoughts. The
faults of this passage, then, are these. First, there is nothing in
the Hebrew to answer to the word Intenta. Secondly, "every
[ 4 Lib. in. c. 38. p. 309, A. (ed. Fevard. Par. 1675) Lib. iv. c. 78. p.
425, c. The reference in the text is a mistake, since there are not seventy-
seven chapters in the third book in any edition that Whitaker could have used.]
[ 5 Denuntians serpenti futurum semen mulieris, quod noxii capitis elatio-
nem sua virtute contereret. pp. 13, 14. Opp. Lugd. 1623.]
[ 6 Opp. Lugd. 1639. T. I. p. 29.]
jn ,TI ii^ rattfro n-bai. Gen. vi. 5.]
166 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
thought of the heart " is substituted for the whole figment of the
thoughts of man s heart. Thirdly, the particle only is omitted,
which hath the greatest possible weight in the expression.
Bellar mine s second observation is, that it does not follow from
this that, as the Lutherans suppose, all the works of men are evi ;
since this is a hyperbole, similar to that which is said in the same
chapter, "All flesh had corrupted its way," while yet Noah is called
in the very same place a righteous man and a perfect.
I answer. In the first place, the Lutherans do not say that
all man s works are evil, but only the works of men not yet rege
nerate. Now, that these latter are all evil, is most manifestly plain
from other testimonies of scripture, and specially from this place.
Secondly, there is no hyperbole in this passage ; for in reality the
desires of such men are nothing but evil. This even Andradius
acknowledges, Orthodox. Explic. Lib. in. and Defens. Lib. v. For
he says that that is evil, "which the human heart itself begins the
effort to frame and form." If the first movements of the heart be
so vicious and impure, what remains at all sound in the human
breast ? For we do not speak of the substance of the heart, but of
the qualities. Thirdly, there is nothing whatever hyperbolical in
the assertion, that all flesh had corrupted its way. Noah was, indeed,
a just man and a perfect ; yet so as that his justice was not innate
in his nature, but received as a gift from God : for Noah was not
entirely pure from all that corruption which had pervaded all flesh.
See what hyperboles these men have found in scripture ! Concerning
Noah, Jerome writes thus in his Questions on Genesis: "It is empha
tically said, in his generation, to shew us that he was righteous
not according to the measure of absolute righteousness, but according
to the righteousness of his generation 1 ."
The third place is in Gen. ix., where they read thus: Qui
fuderit sanguinem hominis, fundetur sanguis illius. Here the
words "by man 2 " are omitted. Bellarmine says that this omission
does not render the sense imperfect, since the sense is the same in
the Hebrew and in the Latin: "He who shall slay man shall be
slain himself."
I answer. The sense is not so full .in the Latin as in the
Hebrew. For the clause " by man," or, as others render it, " in
man," is emphatic, as Cajetan in his Commentaries and others
also inform us, and is variously explained by many expositors ; all
[ J Ut ostenderet non juxta justitiam consummatam, sed juxta generationis
suse justitiam, fuisse eum justum. T. in. p. 316.]
[2 TfS l OT D1KIL 0"Nn OT. -FSitf. Gen. ix. 6.]
X.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 167
which explanations are taken from us, if these words be removed
from the text. It is false, therefore, that the sense is not im
paired by this omission. The truest explanation seems to be that
given by those who think that the authority of the magistrate and
the judge is sanctioned in these words, and that a murderer is not
to be merely left to the divine vengeance, but searched out and
punished by those to whom the sword hath been delivered by God.
For it is not the same thing for one to say merely, " he who slays
man shall be himself slain," as it is when one adds "by man."
For the former might be understood only to mean that he should
be slain by God ; but the latter implies that he is to be consigned to
death by man.
The fourth place is Gen. xiv. 18, where in the Hebrew neither
is there any trace of the word "offering," nor of a causative
conjunction.
Bellarmine objects, in the first place, that the Vulgate edition
does not read obtulit, but protidit panem et vinum.
I answer. Nevertheless in some copies we do find obtulit ; nor
does Andradius deny it in the fourth book of his Defence. But
most of the Latin copies do indeed now read proferens panem et
vinum, not offer ens. Which shews that our adversaries do the
more grossly abuse this place, when they apply it to support the
sacrifice of the mass.
Secondly, he objects that tne particle Ve is in Hebrew often
taken for Chi, because*.
I answer. This is not denied ; nor was there any occasion to
prove it by the citation of so many instances. However, it hath
riot that force in this passage. For Melchisedek brought forth the
bread and wine, not to offer sacrifice or discharge any priestly
[ 3 The clause in question is \ |Vfy; b$b ]Pp NTI] }^} Dr6 NWl,
and the question seems to be whether his being priest of the Most High be
mentioned in connexion with the bringing forth of the bread and wine, or
with his blessing Abraham. If with the former, then the ) may be causative.
For when the sense of a clause in Hebrew is such as to leave the reader s
mind searching for a reason of the thing stated in it, then the conjunctive
particle is often used to carry on the train of thought thus implied rather
than expressed: i.e. it becomes causative. But there seems no reason here
for any such connexion ; because there was nothing for which the reader
would naturally seek any reason, not to be found amongst the other circum
stances, in the act of Melchisedech bringing refreshment for Abraham and
his followers : whereas the clause is perfectly fitted to introduce the circum
stance of the benediction.]
168 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
function, but rather to do as became a king, that is, refresh with
provisions Abraham and his comrades in the battle. This answer
you will not perhaps approve when given by me. Listen, therefore,
to the reply of your own fellows. Cajetan speaks thus in his
Commentary upon this place: "That which in the Vulgate edition
is subjoined as the cause of the oblation ( for he was priest of the
most high God ) is not given in the Hebrew as a reason, but as a
separate clause : Also he was priest to the high God/ It adds
his priestly dignity, to his royal honour and bounty 1 ." Thus
Cajetan refers his production of the bread and wine to his royal
bounty, his benediction of Abraham to his sacerdotal dignity, and
that with perfect justice. So Andradius, Deferis. Trid. Lib. iv.:
" I agree with those who say that Melchisedek refreshed with bread
and wine the soldiers of Abraham, wearied and broken with the
long battle 2 ." You have, therefore, Andradius and Cajetan, and
many more, differing from your notion, that the bread and wine
were produced by Melchisedek to offer them as a sacrifice to God.
As to the judgment of the fathers, there will be another place for
answering that argument.
Bellarmine objects thirdly, that in Ps. cix. it is said of Christ :
" Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek !"
Why is Christ a priest after the order of Melchizedek, unless
because the one offered bread and wine, the other himself in the
forms of bread and wine ?
I answer. The apostle plainly teaches us in the Epistle to the
Hebrews, chap. v. vii. how Christ is a priest after the order of Mel
chizedek ; so that there is no necessity for inventing this new
analogy. But if Melchizedek was no otherwise a type of Christ
but because he offered bread and wine, the apostle hath compared
Christ with Melchizedek in vain, and said not one word to the
purpose ; for he hath made no mention of this sacrifice in the com
parison. If then it was by reason of this sacrifice alone that
Christ was a priest after the order of Melchizedek, then the apostle,
in drawing this comparison of Christ with Melchizedek, hath
omitted that altogether which was the only thing worth mention-
[* Quod in vulgata editione subditur, ut causa oblationis (erat enim
sacerdos Dei altissimi), in Hebreeo non habetur ut causa, sed separata clau-
sula, et ipse erat sacerdos El excelso/ Adjungit siquidem regies dignitati
et liberalitati dignitatem sacerdotalem. T. I. p. 66.]
[ 2 Ego cum illis sentio, qui lassos Abrahse milites et diuturna pugna frac-
tos Melchisedechum pane vinoque refecisse aiunt.J
X.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 1G9
ing, and hath not proved with any sufficient care and pertinency
the very thing which was to have been proved. What else is this,
but to offer an open insult to the Holy Spirit ? Which is, indeed,
what these men do, when they say that Christ is a priest after the
order of Melchizedek, upon no other grounds than because the one
offered bread and wine, the other himself in the forms of bread
and wine. But we shall have an occasion elsewhere of speaking of
this whole matter.
The fifth place is in the last chapter of Numbers, where the
Vulgate copies exhibit the following reading: Omnes viri ducent
uxores de tribu et cognatione sua, et cunctce foemince de eadem
tribu maritos accipient 3 . That this is an erroneous interpreta
tion, any one may readily understand in many ways, who shall
compare it with the Hebrew text. In these words it is absolutely
forbidden that any man should take a wife, or any woman marry a
husband, out of their own tribes respectively. But many examples
occur in scripture of marriages contracted between persons of dif
ferent tribes. It was not, therefore, the meaning of the law, that
every man and woman should marry only into their own tribes ;
but the command extended only to heritors, to prevent the posses
sions and estates of the several tribes from being confounded, or
passing into other tribes. Whatever, then, Bellarmine may say to
excuse the fault of this version, whoever will give the place even
the slightest inspection, will immediately detect its erroneousness.
And whereas Bellarmine affirms that the words run just the same
way in the Hebrew as in the Latin, (which I marvel how he could
assert so confidently and yet so falsely,) I will confute him with no
other testimony than that of Cajetan. This is Cajetan s remark
upon the place: "This clause is not contained in the Hebrew 4 ."
That cardinal denies that to be contained in the Hebrew, which
Bellarmine affirms to be contained in it : but the cardinal is Bel-
larmine s superior both in authority and in truth. Afterwards the
same cardinal presently subjoins : " See how many and how im
portant additions to the law the translator hath passed over in
silence. The law is not delivered concerning every daughter, but
of a daughter that is an heiress 5 ," &c. Thus there are many
faults of the Vulgate edition in this place, if we believe Cajetan ;
[ 3 Numbers xxxvi. 7, 8.]
[ 4 Non habetur hsec clausula in textu Hebraico. T. I. p. 428.]
[ 5 Vide quot et quales additiones legis siluit intcrpres. Non traditur lex
de qualibet filia, sed de filia hserede.]
170 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cil,
and yet Bellarmine could see none, lest perchance he should be
forced to acknowledge some error in the Vulgate edition, which, no
doubt, would be a most deplorable catastrophe !
The sixth place is Ezra ix. 8, where the reading is pax illius,
whereas we should read paxillus l . Here Bellarmine acknowledges
an error of the transcribers ; for the Hebrew word denotes a
stake, so that there is no room to doubt that this is the true read
ing. As to Bellarmine s assertion that many Latin copies exhibit
paxillus, I think it by no means probable, since the Louvain cor
rectors of the Bible retain the old and wrong reading in the text ;
which surely they would not have done, if they had felt that the
authority of copies would have supported them in amending the
passage. Indeed, we may well ask why they did not amend it?
Is the matter doubtful or obscure ? Bellarmine confesses that to
be the true reading which they have excluded from the text, that
false which they retain in the text. Yet the divines of Louvain,
who profess themselves to be desirous of correcting the errors of
the Vulgate edition, have marked indeed, but not removed, this
error, certain and shameful as it is. And with other such mistakes
of the transcribers, known, manifest and acknowledged, does that
edition abound. Should we receive that for authentic scripture,
which its very correctors have left so full of blemishes ?
The seventh place is Job v. 1 : Voca si quis est qui tibi re-
spondeat, et ad aliquem sanctorum convertere. Bellarmine says
that Chemnitz pretends that this place was corrupted to support
the invocation of saints ; and thereupon, with sufficient impudence,
pronounces him drunk. But Chemnitz blames not the version of
the passage, but the reasoning of the papists from that version ;
that the saints are to be invoked, because we are bidden to betake
ourselves to some of the saints : whereas those are called saints
in scripture, who cultivate holiness during their lives. And thus
these men often abuse the Latin version to the support of their
doctrines in a way that can hardly be called sober argumentation.
The eighth place is Prov. xvi. 11, where they read lapides
seculi 2 , instead of lapides sacculi ; which passage we have men
tioned before. And Bellarmine confesses that the reading which
[! The word in the Hebrew is in\ upon which Gesenius observes, "pan-
gere paxillum. Hebrseis (et Arabicus, v. yit. Tom. i. p. 134, 228. ed. Mauger)
imago est sedis firmse et stabilis Jer. xxii. 23, de qua "1JT dicitur, Esr. ix. 8."]
[2 D
X.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 171
exhibits sacculi is the true one, but the Vulgate, even in its latest
Louvain edition, false, which exhibits seculi.
The ninth place is Eccles. ix. 2 : Nescit homo, utrum odio vel
amore dignus-sit, sed omnia in futurum servantur incerta 3 . Bel-
larmine says that the Vulgate interpreter hath rendered the passage
excellently well, not counting, indeed, the Hebrew words, but
weighing them and expressing their sense.
1 answer. The Vulgate interpreter in this place hath neither
counted the words, nor weighed them, nor expressed the sense, but
rendered them most falsely ; which will readily appear evident, if
the Hebrew words be compared with this translation. For those
interpreters who have translated the scriptures from the Hebrew,
with the greatest care and fidelity, have perceived that these words
required a totally different interpretation. Vatablus hath translated
the passage thus : " And that man is ignorant alike of love and
hatred, but to him (God) all things are set open 4 ." Pagninus
thus : " Both love and hatred man knows not ; all which are
before them 5 ." Cajetan thus : " Both love and hatred man knows
not ; all in their face 6 ." Jerome himself translated this passage far
otherwise, as appears from that other interpretation of this book,
which is extant amongst his works, where we read : Et quidem
caritatem, et quidem odium non est cognoscens homo : omnia in
facie eorum. This differs, both in words and in sense, from yours,
which yet ye call Jerome s. As to the sense, it is not what you
suppose ; that all things here are doubtful and uncertain, so that
no man, while he remains in this life, knows whether he enjoys the
love of God or labours under his hatred. This is an utterly false
assertion, and contrary to the whole teaching of the scriptures :
for the scriptures every where teach, that those who believe are
certain of the favour of God and their own salvation ; which most
true and sacred doctrine should not be rejected for the sake of the
error of your version. We shall speak of the matter itself else
where : for the present, let cardinal Cajetan teach Bellarmine that
this is not the sense of the place in hand. " Before us are those
things which are carried on about us, whether prosperous or adverse:
[ 3 Drroa n DINH jrrp p
[ 4 Quodque pariter amorem et odium ignorat homo, ipsi autem (Deo)
sunt omnia proposita.]
[ 5 Etiam amorem, etiam odium nescit homo : quse omnia ante eos sunt.]
[ 6 Etiam amorem etiam odium non scions homo : omnia enim in facie
eorum.]
172 THE FIItST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
at the same time we know not the cause of adversity or pros
perity, whether it be the love or hatred of God, that is, whether
God out of his love to a man governs him by adverse circum
stances, and in like manner, out of his hatred to a man governs
him by adversity ; and the same may be said of prosperity 1 ."
Mercer, a man exquisitely skilled in the Hebrew tongue and scrip
ture, interprets and explains the passage to the like effect ; nor
does he think that your own translator meant any thing more than
this, that it cannot be judged and certainly determined by external
circumstances, whether any one is loved by God or not, since all
happen alike to all, to the just and the impious, the pure and the
impure, the good and the unrighteous, those who sacrifice and
those who sacrifice not, those who swear and those who reverence
an oath, as it follows in the succeeding sentences.
The tenth place is Ecclus. v. 5 : De propitiato peccato noli
esse sine metu. The place is badly translated, since the Greek is
Trepl e^tXacr/mov imrf cKpofios yivov. Which words warn men not to
sin presumptuously through confidence of obtaining remission of
their sins : for it follows, " nor add sin to sin." For many heap
sin upon sin, because they promise themselves certain remission ;
whom Ecclesiasticus deters by this most solemn admonition.
As to Bellarmine s pretence, that we say that a man should be
secure of obtaining pardon, and therefore that our opinion is con
futed by these words, he seems to understand our doctrine but
badly. For we do not approve security in any man, as he slan
derously lays to our charge.
The eleventh place is Ecclus. xvi. 15 : Misericordia faciet
locum unicuique secundum meritum operum suorum. Here in a
few words are many errors. For thus stands the Greek text :
-N -y / / / tl \ \ \ if
TrcKjr] e\rjjiioa vi rj iroir](jov TOTTOV e/ca&lt;jTos *y(xp KCITO, TO, epya
aurov ev privet " Make way for every work of mercy : for every
man shall find according to his works." The words are not the
same, and the sense different. That word merit, whence did the
Vulgate translator get it ? Certainly he did not find it in the
Greek. For as to Bellarmine s pretence that /card epya is the
same as " according to the merit of one s works," which he says
[* Coram nobis sunt ea quse circa nos geruntur, sive pro?pera, sire ad-
versa; et cum hoc nescimus causam adversitatis yel prosperitatis, an sit
odium vel amor Dei, hoc est, an Deus tanquam amans aliquem gubernet
eum per adversa : et similiter an tanquam odio habens aliquem gubernet eum
per adversa: idemque dicito de prosperis. p. 165. sine loco. 1545.]
X.] QUESTION THE SECOND, 173
that every one knows who is ever so slightly skilled in the Greek
language ; I would fain know from him who is so skilful in the
Greek tongue, in what Lexicon or other book he ever found that
Kara epya means anything else but "according to works?" And if
Bellarmine can make no distinction between works and the merit of
works, he hath no reason to attribute to himself any great skill and
expertness in either the Greek language or theology. To works there
is a reward promised in scripture ; to the merits of works none, but
that of death.
The twelfth place is Joel ii. 13 : Prcestabilis super ma-
litia 2 . What is this ? Let us hear Bellarmine s explanation :
"Prcestabilis super malitia," saith he, " means excelling in compas
sion." As if prcestabilis super were all one with excelling, or
malitia the same thing as compassion. Or otherwise: "Prcestabilis
super malitia is as much as to say, so good as not to be overcome
of evil." But that is not the meaning of the prophet. The pro
phet extols the clemency and goodness of God, and says that it is
so great that God repents him of the evil with which he had
determined to afflict the people. This may easily be understood.
The other is not only obscure, but absolutely barbarous.
The thirteenth place is Micah v. 2, which Osiander says is
wrongly rendered by the old translator. For it should not be
translated, parvula es in millibus Judah 3 , but, " it is too slight a
thing that thou shouldst be in the thousands of Judah." I have
no business to answer in behalf of Osiander. His correction seems
to deserve some regard, since Matthew in reciting this place, chap.
ii. 6, does not read " art little," but ovSa/uws eXa-^iaTrj el, " art by
no means least:" and the place might undoubtedly be rendered
better than it is rendered by the Vulgate interpreter.
Thus then hath Bellarmine excused some faults of the old
Latin version ; with what skill, learning, or truth, let others judge.
I believe that no one who is not under an immoderate influence of
party spirit will say that the Vulgate translation is nobly vindi
cated by Bellarmine. If there were no other error in that version,
yet it might be sufficiently understood and perceived by those now
adduced, that it is by no means so pure and perfect as to merit to
be esteemed the authentic scripture of God. But besides these there
are others also, and those so many that they cannot be detailed
[2 n^rrv DTO.J
[3 rrnrr ^^i rnSn^ *i^. Osiand. BIR p. n. p. 432. Tubing.
1597. He translates. Pavum est ut sis in millibus Judse.J
174 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
and enumerated. And lest any one should think that I say this
rashly, I will exhibit yet more clearly by fresh instances the in
finite perversity of that version.
I shall commence with Genesis, wherein at the 30th verse
of the first chapter these words, " all green herbs," are wanting
in your Vulgate edition. Nor ought they to be deemed super
fluous. The Lord in this place plainly distinguishes the food of
man from that of cattle : to man God gave the herbs and trees
which yield fruit ; to the beasts all green herbs for food. The
Vulgate translator, omitting these words, says that the same pro
vision is given by God to the brutes and to man.
Gen. ii. 8, the Vulgate hath, Plantaverat Deus Paradisum
voluptatis a principio, instead of, " God had planted a garden in
Eden eastward." For Heden indicates the proper name of a place,
as appears from Gen. iv. 16, where we read that Cain settled on
the east side of this place : and God had not planted that garden
" from the beginning 1 ," since it was only on the third day that he
created the herbs and fruitful trees, as is manifest from chap. i. 12.
More correct is the rendering of the Seventy, /card avaroXas :
and so Vatablus, Pagninus, and Tremellius, ab oriente.
Gen. ii. 23, Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis, instead of 2 , "for
this turn bone of my bone ;" and Cajetan tells us that there is in
these words an emphasis usual with the Hebrews.
Gen. iii. 6, Aspectuque delectabile, instead of, " desirable to
make one wise." Verse 8, in medio ligni Paradisi, for, "amongst
the trees of Paradise." Verse 17, maledicta terra in opere tuo 3 ,
for, " cursed be the earth on thine account." Gen. iv. 13, Major
est iniquitas mea quam ut veniam merear. In the Hebrew there
is not even the shadow of any word denoting merit. It should be
rendered "than I can bear," or "sustain 4 ;" or, "than that I should
obtain forgiveness," as the Septuagint translates it, TOV d&lt;pe0rjvat
yue. At verse 15, Nequaquam ita fiet, is redundant. For the
Lord does not promise Cain that no one should slay him. Verse 16,
Profugus in terra, for, " in the land of Nod," or Naid as the
Septuagint read it, or " the land of wandering." Verse 26, Iste
[! The word is DTjpD, which is ambiguous: cf. Ps. Ixxiv. 12; Ixxvii. 6.]
[2 DySH Jltff . I cannot see the fault of the Vulgate here.]
[3 The translator mistook the word "pnyi* reading it with a Daleth
instead of a Resh -), and so making an unauthorised derivative from
equivalent to
[4
X.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 175
cospit invocare, for, "then began men 5 :" for it is not the person
but the time which Moses particularises. Gen. v. 22, those words,
et vixit Enoch, are superfluous.
Gen. vi. 3, Non permanebit Spiritus meus in homine in
ceternum, instead of, " My Spirit shall not strive 6 ." Verse 6, et
prcecavens infuturum, should be struck out.
Gen. viii. 4, Vicesimo septimo die mensis, instead of, " upon
the seventeenth day of the month ;" where the Vulgate edition
follows not the Hebrew original, but the seventy interpreters :
which is also the case verse 7, where it translates, qui egrediebatur
et non revertebatur. For the raven went and returned into the
ark, as is plain from the Hebrew, until the waters dried up.
Hence Eugubinus, though a papist, deservedly blames in his
Scholia the Vulgate version of this verse.
Gen. xi. 12. Arphaxad is said in the Vulgate edition to have
lived, after he had begotten Saleth, three hundred and three years.
But the Hebrew text proves him to have lived four hundred and
three years.
Gen. xiii. 2, Dives valde in possessione* auri et argenti,
instead of, " very rich in flocks, in silver, and in gold." And verse
11, Divisique sunt alterutrum a fratre suo, which is absolutely
unintelligible. The Hebrew text is plain, that they separated the
one from the other.
Gen. xiv. 3. That is called vallis sylvestris, which should
have been called Siddim, or a plain. For, unless it be a proper
name, it denotes arable, and not woody ground 8 . Gen. xvii. 16,
Orientur ex eo, for, "from her." Gen. xix. 18, Quceso, Domine
mi, for, " No, I pray thee, my Lord."
Gen. xxi. 9. The expression of the Vulgate is too gentle,
when it says that Ishmael played with 9 (lusisse) Isaac. He rather
[ 6 nJT Dttl N")p&gt; rPin fN. The verb, being in the passive, must
be taken impersonally.]
[ 6 ) IT NT? . Gesenius translates, "Non in perpetuum Spiritus meus in
hominibus humiliabitur ;" making the radical idea of p"| to be, like that of
the Arabic ^J depression; in which case it is cognate with the Anglo-Saxon
down.]
[* HDpftl . However, the word does denote possession in general, as well
as the particular possession of cattle.]
[8 D^Wn pEy from HTO to level]
176 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
played upon Isaac, than with him. And that it should be so
rendered, appears from the apostle to the Galatians, iv. 29, who
interprets this version to mean nothing slighter than a hostile
persecution. But now, if Ishmael had done nothing more than
play with his brother, neither would Sarah have taken it so un
kindly, nor would the apostle on that account have charged
Ishmael with so great a crime.
Gen. xxiv. 22, we have duo sicli, instead of, " the half of
a shekel." And at verse 32, what is the meaning of distravit
camelos ? He should have said that he loosed, or took their
burdens off the camels ; which, as I take it, is not the sense
of distravit. In this verse too water is said to have been
brought to wash the camels feet, which, however, was really
prepared for washing the feet, not of the camels, but of the
servant. And at verse 6, the Vulgate hath, qui festinus reverte-
batur ad Dominum suum, instead of, " and that servant took
Rebecca, and departed." In the last verse of Gen. xxviii., Esau is
said in the Vulgate to have " counted it a slight thing that he had
sold his birthright." But the Hebrew text says that he despised
the birthright itself. For Esau might have thought slightly of
the sale of the birthright, and yet might have prized highly the
birthright itself. So that the Vulgate translator hath by no means
come up to the sense of the words or the enormity of the sin
intended. Gen. xxvii. 5, ut jussionem patris impleret, instead of,
" to take the prey which he should bring." At verse 33, those
words, ultra quam credi potest admirans, are redundant. Like
wise Gen. xxxi. 32, these, quod autemfarti me arguis.
Gen. xxxiv. 29, the clause, " and they plundered finally what
soever was in any house," is omitted, while quibus perpetratis
audacter is added superfluously. Gen. xxxvi. 24, the Vulgate
interpreter says that Anan found "" warm waters" in the desert ;
which version all who know any thing of Hebrew know to be
false 1 ; for Anan found not hot springs, of which there is no
mention made in this place, but mules. This place, therefore, the
Septuagint translated ill 2 , and the Vulgate interpreter in following
them hath erred from the Hebrew verity.
[! Gesenius (Lex. voc. O^CJj) observes, "Quod Hieronymus scribit in
Qusest. ad 1. c., nonnulli putant aquas calidas juxta Punicce linguce viciniam,
quse Hebrseae contermina est, hoc vocabulo significari, non contemn endum
Conjectura sat iiifelici ex contextu facta mulos intelligunt nonnulli
Hebrsei et Lutherus."]
[ 2 This seems to be an oversight of Whitakcr s : for the Septuagint have
X.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 177
Gen. xxxvii. 2. Joseph is said in the Vulgate to have been
sixteen years of age, when he fed his father s sheep along with
his brothers. But in the Hebrew text it is seventeen. In the
same verse the Vulgate interpreter says that Joseph accused his
brethren to his father with a very grievous accusation, as if some
fixed and foul crime were intended ; but the Hebrew text runs
thus : " And Joseph reported the ill report of them to their
father," i. e. he related their ill behaviour to their father, and
informed him of all their faults.
Gen. xxxviii. 5, the Vulgate translator reads : Quo nato,
parere ultra cessavit ; which is foreign from the meaning of the
Hebrew text. It ought to have been rendered, " And she was in
Chezib when she bore him 3 ;" for Chezib is the name of a city of
the Philistines. And, verse 12, Hirah is called opilio gregis by
the Vulgate interpreter, as by the Septuagint o Troijuqv avTou.
But Jerome blames this version, and teaches us that the Hebrew
word denotes not a shepherd, but a friend 1 : so that this Hirah,
who went to the town with Judah, was his friend, and not his
shepherd. At verse 23, the old version hath, Certi mendacii
arguere nos non potest. But the true sense of the Hebrew is,
"that we be not despised 5 ."
Gen. xxxix. 6, these words, " Wherefore he left all his goods
in the hand of Joseph," are omitted. At verse 10, something is
wanted to make the sense complete : for thus we read in the
Vulgate, Hujusmodi verbis per singulos dies. It should have been
filled up from the Hebrew original, " with such words every day
did she address Joseph" But the words which follow are super
fluous, Et mulier molesta erat adolescenti.
Gen. xl. 5, this whole clause is left out, " The butler and the
baker of the king of Egypt who were bound in the tower of the
prison." At verse 16 we have tria canistra farince, for " three
white (or osier) baskets 6 ." But here the Vulgate interpreter
followed the Septuagint, not the Hebrew original itself.
not translated it at all, but retained the original word, os tvpev rov la/xeti/ ev
a
[3 n Ptfn i pi rnrn.]
[ 4 inyi . The difference is in the points ; H&gt;n a friend,
shepherd.]
p ]^h nvn js.]
[6 V"in vp. Gesenius translates *nn panls albus. LXX. Kara x ov ~
fyirav. I think the Vulgate is not here to be blamed.]
12
[WHITAKER.]
178 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
Gen. xli. 45, the Vulgate interpreter, in explaining the name
which Pharaoh gave to Joseph, hath followed conjecture rather
than any certain reason. For he first says that those words are
Egyptian ; and then he explains them to mean the Saviour of the
world 1 : for thus we read in the text of the Vulgate edition,
Et vocabit eum lingua ^gyptiaca Salvatorem mundi. The
Septuagint have set down these two words without any explanation ;
and the Hebrews doubt whether they are Egyptian or Chaldee.
Josephus interprets them, " the discoverer of secrets 2 ;" and with
him agree the later Jews and the Chaldee Paraphrast. It may
seem strange whence Jerome learnt that these were Egyptian
terms, and that they denoted " the Saviour of the world."
Gen. xlix. 10, Jacob says of Judah, " binding the foal of his
ass to the vine." But the Vulgate translator hath rendered those
words thus ; Ligans ad vitem, O fili mi, asinam suam. And,
at verse 22, Joseph is compared to a fruitful branch beside a well ;
which words the Vulgate translates thus, accrescens et decorus
aspectus 3 . At verse 24, Jacob says of Joseph, " and the arms of
his hands were strengthened ;" which, in your edition, is turned to
a quite contrary sense, dissoluta sunt vincula brachiorum et
manuum ejus. In this place the translator followed the version of
the Septuagint, and not the Hebrew text.
At the end of that chapter, after the 32nd verse, this whole
clause is omitted : " Now that piece of ground was bought, and also
the cave which is therein, from the sons of Heth." Thus that
chapter is, in the Vulgate edition, too short by one entire verse.
Hitherto we have run over a single book ; in which review we
have not been at all so curious or malicious as to let nothing which
[! rt3&gt;?2 .H3S^. Gesenius, after Bernard and Jablonski, thinks the
Vulgate interpretation right, deriving the word from the Egyptian article
p sot Saviour, and phenec alwv. This explanation regards the form given
by the LXX. ^ovOo^avr^x as correct; for the above words, when com
pounded, would in Coptic be Psotmphenec : the interposed m being sounded
om in the dialect of upper Egypt. See Scholtz, Expos. Voc. Copt, in Repert.
Litt. Bibl. et Orient. T. xm. p. 19.]
[ 2 277/zcuWi yap TO ovopa KpVTrrwv cvptrrjv. Joseph. Antiq. L. II. c. vi. 1.]
[3 jvy i^g. The Vulgate took ]^ in the sense of mien. The LXX.
give a different turn, but still understand ]*)} in the sense of an eye, not a well.
Indeed we have two different versions in the present text of the LXX.
Mou ^Xoor^s (who has his eye on me), and Upos /xe amo-rpe^ov (turn back
thine eye on me.)]
X.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 179
might justly deserve blame escape our hands. Many things I have
knowingly and deliberately passed over, which nevertheless ought
certainly to be accounted errors, because repugnant to the truth of
the originals.
Were I to examine in the same way the remaining books of
the old Testament, I should find an abundant crop of errors, and
fill many pages with the enumeration of them. For your version
is not a whit more exact in the other books than we have seen it
to be in this ; whence we may easily form an estimate of the gross-
ness of its faults throughout. Indeed, since many have translated
the scriptures from the original into various languages, and correct
ed in their versions the errors of this Vulgate edition, whoever
would compile a separate book, diligently and accurately executed,
upon the errors of this edition, would, in my opinion, undertake
and perform- a work of very great utility. For from such a work
all would reap the benefit of seeing and understanding the great
difference there is between the pure springs of the Hebrew verity,
and the muddy and turbid streams of this version which they call
the Vulgate. Were I to enter on the remaining books, I should
engage in a task not at all required by the plan of my under
taking, and be drawn into a digression which would interrupt the
course of our disputation. I have, I hope, sufficiently proved to
you that this Latin edition is full of many errors and mistakes,
such as our adversaries have never hitherto found even a single
instance of in the originals. This it is not we alone that affirm:
even some leaders of the popish sect maintain the same thing. No
reason then can be adduced, why the Hebrew edition in the old
Testament, and the Greek in the new, should not command a great
and deserved preference to the Latin Vulgate. I shall now return
to Bellarmine, and sift the remainder of his defence.
CHAPTER XL
Or THE LATIN EDITION OF THE PSALMS AND ITS MANIFOLD
CORRUPTIONS.
BELLARMINE next inveighs against Calvin, and pleads in defence
of the Latin edition of the Psalms, which Calvin, in his Antidote to
the council of Trent, had most truly declared, and proved by some
122
180 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
instances, to be corrupt and vicious. And who is there, but the
patron of a desperate cause, who can maintain the claims of this
edition to the character of an authentic and uncorrupted document ?
For it is absolutely certain that it is rendered into Latin, not from
the Hebrew, but from the Greek ; not by Jerome, but by some
unknown and uncertain author. Would it not be more conformable
to reason for these men to make the Greek, from which that version
is derived, authentic? since the latter is only the daughter, or
image rather, of the former. Why do they, in the case of the
other books, receive what they think to be the Hieronymian
version, and yet reject it here ? Jerome expended as much labour
upon translating the Book of Psalms into Latin as upon the other
books ; and that Latin edition, which was in most general use
before Jerome, was no less faulty in the Psalms than in the other
parts : but on account of the constant and customary use of the
Psalms, which had everywhere propagated that old Latin version
in the churches, and made it familiar to men s ears, the Hieronymian
Latin translation was not publicly received. Is this, then, to be
held superior to Jerome s version in the Psalms? By no means.
For it was not retained because it was better, but because it was
more common, and could not easily be changed. Upon the same
grounds, if use had confirmed that old version in the case of the
other books also, it would not be now the Hieronymian, but it,
however corrupted, that would, in spite of all its faults, be esteemed
authentic. For thus the case stands with respect to the Psalms.
The Latin edition is ratified as authentic. Why ? We have the
Hebrew and the Greek: whereof the Hebrew proceeds directly
from the Prophets, David, Moses, Asaph, Solomon, and others who
wrote the Psalms ; and the Greek was made, as most people sup
pose, by the seventy Interpreters. This latter, though it must not
absolutely be despised, hath yet most foully corrupted in many
places the pure fountains of the Hebrew verity. Now the Latin is
still more corrupt than this, as being still farther removed from the
fountain head, and derived from the stream and not from the
spring. Yet it is not the Hebrew, nor the Greek, but this Latin
edition, such as I have described it, that the Tridentine fathers
have made the authentic scripture of the Psalms. And although all
can see the enormous impudence of this proceeding, yet their
most reckless rashness and temerity will appear yet more plainly
when some errors of this edition are set before your eyes. Since
then Bellarmine hath endeavoured to excuse those which Calvin
XI.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 181
had remarked, let us see with what shew of success or probability
he hath performed his task.
The first place is Psalm ii. 12 : Apprehendite disciplinatn 1 .
Bellarmine says that in the Hebrew it is, " kiss," or " adore the
Son;" but that the sense is excellently well expressed by appre-
hendite disciplinam, since we can no otherwise acknowledge the
Son to be the Messiah than by receiving his faith and doctrine.
I answer, in the first place, that a translator of scripture hath
no right, first to change the words, and then to plead this excuse,
that the sense hath been rendered by him. For we are not
to consider the sense which he renders, but what the inspired
words require. Secondly, the sense is not the same. For
who will say, that to apprehend discipline is the same thing as
to kiss the Son? For it does not follow that, because we must
needs embrace Christ s discipline, if we acknowledge him as Mes
siah and our King, therefore the sense of these two expressions is
the same. In this way all propositions, which agreed with each
other, might be made out absolutely identical. Thirdly, a most
noble testimony to Christ, for the refutation of Christ s enemies, is
by this version wrested from us. For discipline may be under
stood in such a sense as to have nothing to do with Christ ; but
the command to kiss the Son commends to us both his divine
nature and his royal sway.
The second place is Psalm iv. 3 : Usque quo gravi corde 2 ? In
the Hebrew it is, "how long my glory into shame?" Bellarmine
says, first, that the Hebrew text is probably corrupt ; secondly,
that the sense is the same.
I answer to the first plea : The Hebrew text is now precisely
the same as it was in Jerome s time, as appears from his Psalter.
The Septuagint read and translated the passage erroneously, and
this interpreter followed them. The cavils and calumnies of Lin-
danus upon this place are sufficiently refuted by his master, Isaac.
Then as to the sense, who does not see that there is a great diversity,
especially if we follow Bellarmine s exposition? For he says,
that God here complains concerning men. But that is a mistake :
LXX. 8pdao-0 TraiSfias. Jerome, Adorate pure. Ewald,
however, (Poetischen Biicher. in. p. 66) prefers the LXX. and Vulgate. He
translates " nehme Rath an."]
[ 2 HEW Tb^. The Vulgate follows the LXX. papvicdpSioi, ; they
read, HD l
182 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cil.
the speech is not God s, but David s, complaining of the boldness
and wickedness of his enemies. " sons of men, ye insolent
foes of mine, who, buoyed up with arrogance and fury, despise all
others, how long will ye treat my glory with ignominy ?" But
Bellarmine pretends that God speaks and complains of men for
neglecting eternal things, and loving temporal ; which kind of men
are heavy of heart by reason of their own fault, yet the glory of
God by reason of the divine goodness. Who now will not confess
that Bellarmine is a notable interpreter of the Psalms ? Does God
then call those who are heavy of heart his glory ? Does God
call those men his glory, who despise the things of heaven and
pursue the things of earth ? Who must not laugh at such an
exposition? Genebrard, however, hath explained the meaning
better, who by the glory of David understands God himself, to
wards whom these men were disrespectful.
The third place is Psalm xxxi. 4 : Conversus sum in cerwnna
mea, dum configitur spina 1 . These ought to be translated, as
Bellarmine himself translates them from the Hebrew : " My juice
is without moisture, and my freshness is turned into the summer
droughts." These versions are sufficiently different. Yet Bellar
mine says that the Vulgate interpreter cannot be blamed in this
place. He alleges two pleas in defence of him. One is, that he
translated not from the Hebrew, but from the Greek into Latin ;
the other, that there is an error of the transcribers in the
Hebrew. To the first I answer, that the fact of his translating
from the Greek, and not the Hebrew, makes more for the blame
than for the excuse of that interpretation : for in proportion as
the Greek yields to the Hebrew text in fidelity and authority, in
the same proportion must the value be depreciated of a version
made not from the Hebrew but from the Greek. Then, as to his
suspicion that the Hebrew text hath been here corrupted by the
scribes, it is an assertion which Genebrard hath not ventured to
make, nor would any one but Bellarmine, unless he were extrava
gantly prejudiced against the Hebrew originals, think of saying
it; nor indeed would Bellarmine himself, most probably, have
raised such a suspicion, if he had been able to excuse this error in
any other way. The Hebrew words afford a certain and easy
sense. The Latin will scarcely bear any tolerable explanation.
For what is the meaning of dum configitur spina ? The ancients
In the Hebrew, Ps. xxxii. 4.]
XI.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 183
expounded the thorn to denote sin : Bellarmine says that we should
understand the thorn of calamity. Be it so. But what then will
be meant by dum configitur spina ? The Greek reading, though
not deserving much commendation, is yet intelligible, ei&gt; ria e/m-
Trayrjvai JJLOL aKavOav " while the thorn is driven into me." I
see what this means ; but I wish that Bellarmine would give some
interpretation, consistent with the laws of grammar, of the other,
dum configitur spina.
Bellarmine s explanation of the former clause of this verse,
Conversus sum in cerumna, which he makes to mean, " I am
turned to repentance in the time of trouble," is neither admitted by
Jerome s version, nor approved by Genebrard, who observes that
the word Haphac is scarce ever spoken of repentance*.
The fourth place is in the same Psalm, verse 9 : In chamo et
frceno maxillas eorum astringe, qui non approximant ad te. The
place should have been rendered thus : " Their mouth must be
held in with bit and bridle, lest they come nigh to thee 3 ." Bel
larmine says that Calvin here exhibits amazing impudence. Why ?
Because, says he, the Septuagint 4 and Saint Jerome, and all the
fathers, always read this passage as it is read now.
I answer, first, that the Seventy have varied in many places
very widely from the Hebrew, and Jerome gives large testimony
to the fact. Secondly, Jerome in this place abstained from changing
the old version, not because he deemed it incapable of amendment,
but because he thought it was tolerable as it stood. Thirdly, the
fathers reading according to the present text is nothing to the
purpose : they follow the version in common use, which from an
indifferent Greek text was made a worse Latin. But further, in
reply to Bellarmine s assertion that the Hebrew words, even as
they are now read, may very well bear this interpretation, I must
say that it would have been better to have proved this, than
merely to have said it. Certainly Pagninus, Vatablus, Montanus,
and Tremellius were of a different opinion ; and Genebrard owns
that the sentence was indeed broken up by the Septuagint, but
[ 2 I can find no instance of such a use of ^SH.]
[3 The Hebrew is ?$** nilp ^ 0^1$ VTJJ ]D*TT:inM, thus
rendered by Ewald : Zaum und ziigel miissen dessen Bachen Schliessen, der
sich dir nicht freundlich naht, p. 35, ut supra.]
[4 f V ^aAtpo) Koi Kr]p,u&gt; ras orayoj/a? avT&v ayai rcoi/ p.^ eyyi6vTa&gt;v Trpos (re.
Jerome : In camo et freno maxillas ejus constringis, ut non appropinquet ad
te.]
184 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cil.
for the sake of making it more easy. In fact, however, they have
made it more intricate and difficult by this plan of breaking it up.
For the prophet warns us not to be devoid of reason and discretion,
"like the horse and the mule, whose mouths must be held in with
bit and bridle, lest they fall upon us." The old translator hath set
forth a totally different sense of the words, as if God had com
manded David to bind with bit and bridle the throats of all those
who (in Genebrard s words) do not approach " thy nature, which is that
of a man, reason and virtue." Nothing could possibly be alleged
more remote from the prophet s meaning than such an exposition.
The fifth place is in Psalm xxxvii. 8 : Quoniam lumbi mei
repleti sunt illusionibus 1 . Calvin asks, how we are to understand
that his reins were filled with illusions ? Bellarmine says that the
Hebrew word denotes not only shame, but heat 2 . I answer, that
this is indeed true ; but how then does he interpret his loins being
" filled with illusions ? " Forsooth, by putting the effect for the
cause ; since David speaks of the heat and titillation of lust, which
produces illusions in the mind. Away with this. Nothing was
farther from the Psalmist s meaning. Genebrard hath made a much
better attempt, who by these "illusions" understands diseases on
account of which he was mocked and insulted by his enemies. For
David s meaning is, that his loins or reins were filled with a sore
and sharp disorder.
The sixth place is Psal. Ixvii. 7 3 : Qui inhabitare facit unius
moris in domo. The place should be rendered thus: " Who setteth
the single, or solitary, persons in a family." Bellarmine says that
the Hebrew words may very well receive several senses. I answer :
The words will bear but one true sense, and that an easy and
ready one. Amongst the praises of God, the prophet mentions this,
that those who are by themselves, that is, the desolate and solitary,
without kindred, friends or wealth, are so increased, enriched, and
adorned by him, as now to have families, in which are contained
both children and servants. Thus Pagninus renders the words, and
Vatablus and Montanus, and, in the old times, Jerome. The He
brew word does not denote novoTpoTrows (as the Seventy render it 4 ),
[ l In the Hebrew, xxxviii. 7.]
[ 2 n?pj). The Radical of j"ftp&gt; i n the sense of heat, seems the same as
appears in cal-eo, caZ-or.]
[3 Heb. Ps. Ixviii. 6.]
[ 4 The Seventy seem unjustly blamed here. They used fiovorpoTros, in
the sense recognised by good authors, to express the notion of solitariness.
XI.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 185
that is of one manner, but solitary or lone persons. So that all
the common disquisitions upon this place concerning similitude of
manners and the identity of tastes, however true in themselves, are
foreign to the subject and impertinent to the matter in hand.
The seventh place is in the next verse of the same Psalm : Qui
habitant in sepulchris. Calvin contends that we should read, " in
a dry place 5 ." By this expression, says Bellarmine, the translator
wished to declare the horrors of that desert from which God brought
his people forth.
I answer : This man imagines that the Latin version of the
Psalms, in its present state, is nobly defended, and his duty as its
champion sufficiently discharged, when he is able to assign any
sense at all to the words, no matter what, provided it be not impious
and heretical. As if nothing else were required of a translator of
scripture, but only to express some sense or other not absolutely
absurd, however remote from the real meaning of the Holy Spirit.
For what can be more foreign to the mind of David than this
meaning which our opponent ascribes to these words? The pro
phet is not, as Bellarmine supposes him to be, speaking of that
desert out of which God had brought his people, which might, for
its horridness, be compared to the tombs ; but is saying that those
who prove rebellious are thrust by God into dry and thirsty regions.
What hath this to do with the desert through which God led his
people into the land of Canaan ? But this is not all that Calvin
finds fault with in the verse before us. For the words sound thus
in the Hebrew : "He bringeth forth those that are bound with
chains, but the rebels dwell in a very dry place." The Latin
interpreter translates them thus, falsely and foolishly : Qui educit
vinctos in fortitudine, similiter eos qui exasperant, qui habitant
in sepulchris. What could possibly be expressed with greater con
fusion ? Yet Genebrard applies to this place some medicine in his
scholium, to cure the disorder of the Latin version. The words,
according to him, are to be thus explained ; that the rebels, who
dwell in the sepulchres, or the dry places, are brought forth and
delivered from death and the devil, or from dangers and evils.
Thus this man by his exposition changes a most gloomy punishment
It is so used by Josephus, B. J. II. xxi. 1, where he speaks of John of Giscala,
\rja-Trjs yap r]v fjLovorpoTros, eVara Kal (rvvodlav fvpe rfjs ToX/jLijs ; and by Plutarch
in Pelopid. c. 3., p-ovorpoTrov (3iov air apx*l s f^opfvos. Compare Bochart.
Hierozoic. P. I. Lib. n. c. 45. col. 491.]
[5 nrPTO. LXX. eVrctyoir.]
186 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
into a most joyous and delightful benefit. If this be interpreting
scripture, it certainly will be easy enough to make scripture say
any thing we please.
The eighth place is in the same Psalm, verse 12, &c. Dominus
dabit verbum evangelizantibus virtute multa. Rex virtutum
dilecti, dilecti, et speciei domus divide spolia. Si dormiatis inter
medios cleros, pennce columbce deargentatce, et posteriora dorsi ejus
in pallor e auri 1 . These are not the oracles of the Holy Spirit, but
rather, as Calvin truly says of them, senigmas which GEdipus himself
could never solve. It is not only difficult to elicit and educe any
consistent meaning at all from these words, utterly incoherent as they
are ; but to torture them into any thing which approaches the mean
ing of the prophet exceeds all the powers of art. Yet, if you please, let
us have the explanation of Bellarmine. Rex virtutum dilecti
dilecti: that is, the King most mighty, and Father of Messiah his
entirely beloved Son. Speciei domus divide spolia : that is, he
will give to the preachers to divide the spoils of nations, for the
beauty of the house, that is, the adornment of the church : for
that speciei is in the dative case, and is equivalent to ad speciem.
Wondrous well ! First let me ask him whence he gets those two
words, " he will give," and " to the preachers," which are not con
tained in this verse through the whole compass of its words ? For
the preceding verse is divided from it in the Hebrew and the Greek,
and the version of Jerome ; and those words can by no means be
carried over into it. Next, it is absolutely intolerable to make
speciei the same as ad speciem, so as that divider e spolia speciei
domus shall mean, "to divide spoils to the beauty," that is, to
the grace and adornment " of the house," which is the church.
Who speaks Latin after this fashion?
Genebrard hath excogitated another interpretation, more tole
rable indeed, but still alien from the prophet s meaning. He denies
that Rex virtutum here means God, but supposes it to denote
any very brave and powerful prince. The sense therefore will be
[! In the Greek, O Qebs Kvpios So&gt;o-ei prip-a rots vayy\L^op,voLs 8vvdp,fi
TroAA?/. O /3a&lt;nAevs roiv Swa/xecoi/ TOV dyaTr^roi), TOV dycnrrjTov, /cat apaiOTrjTi
TOV OIKOV SieAeV&u ovcvAa. They took JllK^ *O/2? as one word, regarding
the &gt; as merely a vowel of composition, as it is in pl^jJD, and other
proper names, JWT^ they derived from "IT dilexit, taking the termination
p for a diminutive ; and gaye to rtft a meaning of which its radical shews
traces in the Hiphil voice, Exod. xv. 2.]
XI.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 187
this : The most powerful princes shall be the Beloved s, that is,
shall yield to the Beloved of God, or the Son of God : and speciei
he makes not the dative, but the genitive, (although in spite of the
authority- of the Greek text which exhibits Trj (vpaioTrjTi,) and
explains thus ; "it is of the beauty of the house to divide the spoil,"
that is, it pertains to the glory of the house of God to divide
the spoils of conquered kings, that is, demons. Is not this now a
neat interpretation? The remainder is thus explained by Bel-
larmine. Si dormiatis inter medios cleros : that is, if you,
preachers, remain between two lots, the heavenly and the earthly,
that is, be not wholly engaged in action nor wholly in contem
plation, but in a mean between both, then shall the church be like
a most beautiful dove, &c. But ought the preachers to be in the
middle between action and contemplation ? What else can this
mean but to keep clear of either action or contemplation ; in other
words, to be wholly useless? Dormire inter medios cleros, is, in
an unexampled manner, translated, " to sleep between the two lots ;"
and then these two lots are most absurdly understood of action and
contemplation. But everything hath its proper counterpart 2 , and
the exposition suits the version. Genebrard confesses that the wits
of all expositors have been, as it were, crucified in seeking an ex
planation of this passage : undoubtedly it tortured Bellarmine. But
how hath Genebrard himself taken away this cross ? Dormire
inter medios cleros is, if we believe Genebrard, to be in the most
certain and imminent perils. Our translators generally explain the
word, which the Latin version represents by cleros, to mean " the
pots 3 ." But Bellarmine says that it cannot possibly bear that sig
nification. The contrary, however, is the opinion of Genebrard, the
king s professor of Hebrew in the university of Paris, who tells us
that the Hebrew term denotes cauldrons, tripods, or pots.
You have now heard how perplexed, confused, and tortured are
[ 2 Whitaker s words are, " Similes habent labra laetucas." The proverb
occurs in Jerome, and is thus explained by Erasmus : " Usurpat, simulque
interpretatur, hoc proverbium Divus Hieronymus, scribens ad Chromatium
in hunc modum : Secundum illud quoque, de quo semel in vita Crassum
ait risisse Lucilius ; similcm habent labra lactucam, asino carduos come-
dente : videlicet ut perforatam navim debilis gubernator regat, et cseci csecos
ducant in foveam, et talis sit rector quales illi qui reguntur." Adagia. p. 644.
Hanov. 1617.]
[3 D?JpS^, the meaning of which is much disputed. Gesenius renders
it, " stabula, caulse." So E wald, " So ofs ihr zwischen Hurden ruhet."]
188 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
all these explications. But the Hebrew text hath no similar diffi
culty in it ; which Pagninus and Montanus translate thus : " Kings
of armies fled, they fled ; and she that dwelt at home divided the
spoil. If ye have lain in the midst of the pots, ye shall be as the
plumage of a dove, which is covered with silver, and her wings
with yellow gold." This text hath given the interpreters no such
torture, as, according to Genebrard, hath, in the case of the Latin,
set them on the rack.
The ninth place is in the same Psalm at verse 17 : Ut quid
suspicamini mantes coagulates ? Calvin says that we should read,
" Why do ye envy the fat mountains ?" In regard of this place
Bellarmine hath no other answer to give but this, that the Hebrew
word l is found nowhere else but here ; and therefore, since we
must abide by the judgment of some interpreters, the Seventy
should be preferred to all the rest. If this be so, how comes it
that Jerome and Vatablus and Pagninus and Montanus, and all
who have translated the Psalter from the Hebrew, have put a dif
ferent sense upon that word ? If we must abide by the judgment
of the Seventy, on account either of their own or the church s
authority, they who have assigned another meaning to this word
cannot be defended. But let us follow the seventy interpreters,
and inquire into the meaning of the word. The words stand
thus in the Greek Psalter, iva T L JTroXa/u/Bai/ere oprj Tervpw-
meva. ; which the Latin translator renders thus ; Ut quid sus
picamini monies coagulatos ? Why hath Bellarmine concealed
from us the meaning of these words ? What is it to suspect co
agulated mountains ? Bellarmine would do us a favour if he would
inform us.
The tenth place is in the same Psalm also, at verse 19, Etenim
non credentes inhabitare Dominum Deum; which translation agrees
neither with the Hebrew 2 , nor with the Greek. That it does not
agree with the Hebrew, is no way surprising, since it is not derived
from it. But, at least, it should not depart from the Greek, from
which it hath been taken. Yet depart it does, and very widely.
For the Greek edition reads the passage thus : KOI yap aweiOovvras
TOV KaTCKTKrjvuxrai. Here there is a full stop ; and then a new
sentence begins, Kvpios o Geos evXoyrjTos. If the Latin had no
[* D^ll;! rendered by Jerome, excelsl ; by Ewald, gipfeligen ; by Gesenius,
cacumina ; substantially to the same sense.]
[2 : D^rfttf PT p^ on-lib
XI.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 189
other fault save that of its ambiguity and obscurity, it ought not to
be defended.
The eleventh is also in the same Psalm, verse 23 : Convertam in
profundum marls. The Hebrew words denote the very opposite :
" I will bring back from the depths of the sea 3 ." Here Bellarmine
acknowledges a mistake, and says that some copies of the Vulgate
have not in profundum, but in profundis ; and he explains conver-
tere in profundis maris to mean, drawing out those who are in the
depths of the sea. But if this reading and interpretation be the
true, as Bellarmine confesses, why have not the Louvain critics
preferred it to the other which is false ? Although perhaps the
grammarians will not concede to Bellarmine that to convert in the
deep of the sea, is the same as to bring forth from the depths of
the sea.
The twelfth place is in the same Psalm, verse 28 : Ibi Benjamin
adolescentulus in mentis excessu. Which translation Bellarmine
defends warmly, and maintains that these words are to be under
stood of the apostle Paul, who was of the tribe of Benjamin ; and
who, in the transport of his mind, is related to have slept so
soundly that he did not know whether he were in the body or out of
the body. And because the Hebrew word, which the old interpreter
hath rendered, In mentis excessu, signifies a prince or governor, he
combines this interpretation with the former, because Paul was the
chief ruler and spiritual prince of the church of the Gentiles. Thus
there is nothing with which Bellarmine cannot bravely reconcile his
interpretations. But who can believe that David is here speaking
of Paul ? or that the Hebrew word 4 is capable of the meaning
which the old interpreter hath put upon it ? Jerome gives a dif
ferent rendering, Continens eos : Aquila, " their commander : "
Theodotion, " the teacher of them," as we learn from Theodoret
in his Commentaries upon the Psalms. All the later translators too
differ from the Vulgate, giving Lord, Ruler, Prince, and never "in
a trance." But, at any rate, Bellarmine s device of combining
both translations is a stroke of excessive subtilty ; for the He
brew cannot possibly mean both, but at least one or other. There
must needs therefore be an error here either in our editions or in
the old Latin.
[3 : D^ nftD 1W . In the LXX. emorptya Iv /Svtfol?
[ 4 D"]H&gt; LXX. ev eWracm, deriving it from D1H, which is used, in
Niphal, to denote deep slumber and prostration of sense.]
190 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
The thirteenth place is Psalm cxxxi. [cxxxii.] 15 : Viduam ejus
benedicens benedicam. It is in the Hebrew, " her victuals." There
cannot possibly be a more shameful mistake than this. For what hath
the Lord s promise to supply us abundantly with victuals, and, as
it were, to care for our necessary provisions ; what hath this, I say,
to do with "a widow?" Here, though Bellarmine cannot avoid
acknowledging a manifest error, yet he does not think that the
place should be altered, because viduam hath been ever read and
chanted in the church. Is it thus that errors are defended by
their antiquity ? Could the church thus perversely interpret
scripture ? Is it so, that false interpretations should not be cor
rected when once confirmed by long usage in the church ? That
we should read victum and not viduam, the Hebrew word itself
cries out to us, Jerome testifies in his Psalter and his Questions on
Genesis, Symmachus, cited by Theodoret, on the Psalms, Chryso-
stom and Theodoret himself. The fact that some Latin copies of
the Vulgate edition have viduam, hath arisen from an error of cer
tain Greek MSS., in which xypav was read instead of Orjpav. Yet
so obstinate are our adversaries in the defence of all errors that,
let the mistake be never so notorious and the cause of it never so
manifest, they will nevertheless endure no change, no correction.
Hitherto then Bellarmine hath fought his best for the old Latin
edition of the Psalms, and yet hath no great reason to suppose that
he hath fully acquitted himself of his task. For these which Calvin
hath touched are but a few errors, if compared with that multitude
which are to be found in that old Latin edition of the Psalms. To
enable you the more readily to perceive this, I will adduce the
testimony of a single Psalm ; and that shall be the ninetieth (or, as
they reckon, the eighty-ninth), which was composed by Moses the
man of God. Let us briefly run over some verses of this Psalm,
and compare their old Latin version with the Hebrew text. In the
third verse the Latin copies read, following the version of the
seventy translators : Ne convertas hominem in humilitatem ;
et dixisti, convertimini filii hominum. The Hebrew original yields
a far different sense : " Thou convertest man to contrition, and
sayest, Return, ye children of men." How different are these two
sentences ! In the fifth verse the old Latin hath : Quce pro nihilo
habentur, eorum anni erunt ; of which words I am not sure that
any sense can be given. In the Hebrew it is thus : " Thou takest
them off with a flood : they are asleep." In the eighth verse the
Vulgate reads ; Posuisti seculum nostrum in illuminationem vul-
XI.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 191
tus tui. In the Hebrew text it is : " Thou hast set our secrets in
the light of thy countenance." In the nineteenth verse it is thus
in the Vulgate : Quoniam omnes dies nostri defecerunt, et in ira
tua defecimus.- Anni nostri sicut aranea meditabantur : dies
annorum nostrorum in ipsis septuaginta anni : $i autem in poten-
tatibus, octoginta anni : et amplius eorum labor et dolor ; quo-
niam supervenit mansuetudo, et corripiemur. What is the
meaning of these words? or what interpreter is there learned
enough (always excepting Genebrard) to undertake to give a suit
able explanation of them ? The Hebrew is quite otherwise, both in
expression and in sense : " For all our days have declined in thine
anger, we have spent our years like a tale. The days of our years,
there are seventy years in them, or, at most, eighty years. Even
the best of them is labour and trouble : when it is past, forthwith
we flee away."
In the eleventh and twelfth verses the Vulgate reads thus : Et
prce timore tuo iram tuam dinumerare. Dextram tuam sic
notum fac, et eruditos corde in sapientia. In the Hebrew it is :
"And as thy fear, is thy wrath : so teach us to number our days,
and we shall bring our heart to wisdom." In the sixteenth verse,
the Vulgate hath : Respice in servos tuos, et in opera tua, et dirige
filios eorum. But the Hebrew : " Let thy work be clear to thy
servants, and thy beauty in their children."
This is sufficient to shew us how remarkable is the agreement
between the Hebrew original and the Latin edition. There are
seventeen verses in this Psalm ; and I will venture to say that
there are more errors in the old version of it than there are verses
in the Psalm. But should any one suspect that the Hebrew text
which is now in our hands is corrupt, let him consult Jerome s
version in his Psalter and in his 139th Epistle to Cyprian 1 , where he
will find the same Hebrew text of this Psalm as we have at present.
The same is the case of the other Psalms also ; so that it may be
said with truth, that these which they read and chant in their
sacred offices, are not the Psalms of David, but the blunders of the
Greek and Latin translators. And since Bellarmine, at the close of
his Defence, presses us strongly with the testimony of Pellican, I
will pay him back with two for his one, and return him his own
with interest.
The first is that of Bruno Amerbach, in the Preface to his
readers, which he has prefixed to his Psalter of Jerome ; where,
speaking of the old Greek and Latin editions of the Psalms, he
C 1 Ep. cxl. ed. Yallars. T. i. p. 1042.]
192 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
says : " I have added the Greek, with which corresponds the next
column, that common translation which is every where in use,
which is the work of an uncertain author, and, to tell the truth, is
sometimes utterly at variance with the Greek copy. Whether we
are to blame for this the negligence of the translator, or the care
lessness of the transcribers, or, which is more probable, the pre
sumptuous ignorance of some meddling coxcomb, is a question which
I shall not now examine 1 ." The second is that of Lindanus a
follower of the popish cause, who, in his third book de Optimo
Gen. Interpr. c. 6, expresses his opinion that the Greek edition of
the Psalms is not the version of the seventy interpreters, but of
the apostate Symmachus, and that this old Latin translation is the
work of some obscure Greek. His words are these : " After fre
quent and deep reflection upon the translator of our Latin edition,
I seem to perceive many indications which suggest to me a suspicion
that the man was not a Latin, but some petty Grecian. Surely the
ancient Church 1500 years ago, which used this version, could not
have degenerated so much in so short a time from the purity of the
Latin tongue. For the strange renderings which occur both in the
Psalms and the new Testament are more numerous than we can
possibly suppose the blunders of any man conversant with the Latin
tongue, even learned from common talk and not from reading 2 ."
And then he goes on to prove, that the Greek edition of the Psalms
now extant is not that ancient one which was composed by the
seventy interpreters 3 . Hence we may learn what to think of
Genebrard, who, in his Epistle to Castellinus, bishop of llimini,
maintains that this Greek edition is not only catholic, but either
apostolical or the Septuagint. So far of the book of Psalms.
[ l Grsecum item adjecimus, cui respondet e regione translatio, quse
passim legitur, adrjXos, hoc est, auctore incerto, nonnunquam, ut dicam id
quod res est, Sis dia TraaSv ab exemplari Grseco dissidens. Cujus rei culpa
in interpretis oscitantiam, aut in librariorum incuriam, aut, quod verisimilius
sit, alicujus nebulonis audacem imperitiam rejici debeat, nolo excutere in
prsesentia.]
[ 2 Ssepe multumque de nostrse Latinse editionis interprete cogitans, plu-
rima videre videor quse ad suspicandum me invitant, ut non Latinum hominem
sed Grseculum quempiam fuisse existimem. Siquidem ilia prisca ecclesia,
ante annos 1500 hoc versione usa, haud ita potuit a Romanse linguae puritate
intra tantillum temporis degenerare. Nam quse cum in Psalmis, turn in
Novo Testamento occurrunt versionis offendicula, majora sunt quam ut ab
homine Latinse linguce, etiam quse non jam ex lectione, sed ex sermone disci-
tur, potuerint peccari. p. 106. Colon. 1558.]
[ 3 Compare Hody, Lib. iv. p. 588.]
XII.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 193
CHAPTER XII.
OF CORRUPTIONS IN THE LATIN EDITION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
FINALLY, Bellarmine now undertakes the defence of the old
Latin edition of the new Testament, and answers the objections
of Chemnitz and Calvin to those places which they have asserted
to be corrupted by the Latin translator. We proceed to break the
force of this portion also of Bellarmine s defence, and to shew that
the Greek original in the new Testament is purer than the Latin
edition.
The first place is Matth. ix. 13 : Non veni vocare justos, sed
peccatores. Chemnitz asserts that a most noble passage is here
mutilated, because the Latin hath nothing to represent " to re
pentance 4 ." Bellarmine s defence consists of three heads. First,
he says that that clause is found in some Latin copies. I answer,
that, however, it is not found in those which they use as the most
correct and authentic, that is, the copies of that edition which the
Louvain divines have published. And in their latest missal, when
this part of the gospel is repeated upon the Feast of St. Matthew,
the clause in question is omitted.
Secondly, he pretends that it is most likely that this clause is
superfluous in the Greek, and did not appear in the more accurate
MSS.
I answer, that this is by no means likely, since Chrysostom
read that clause, as appears from his commentaries ; and it is likely
that Chrysostom had access to the most correct MSS. Theophylact
too found the same clause in his copies ; and Robert Stephens in
those numerous and very faithful ones (one of which was the
Complutensian) by the help of which he corrected his edition of
the new Testament.
Thirdly, he says that this clause is not necessary, since to
call sinners and not the righteous, is the same thing as to exhort
to repentance those who need it.
I answer, that it is plainly necessary, because Luke, without
all controversy, adds these words, chap. v. 32. For thus, by the
unanimous suffrage of all the copies, we read in Luke, OVK eXrjXvOa
/caAecrctt cWcuoi/s, aXX ajuapTwXous el? /ueraYomi/. Besides, the
[ 4 tis pcravoiav is wanting in the Vatican, Cambridge, and other ancient
MSS. ; in the Persian, Syriac, Ethiopic, and Armenian versions, as well as in
the Vulgate.]
[WHITAKER.]
194 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
reason of the thing leads us to the same conclusion. For it is one
thing to call sinners, and another to call sinners to repentance ; as
Theophylact writes, with great truth, upon this place in Matthew :
ov% iva fJLLV(x)o-iv ajuLaprooXoi, ct\\ iva neTavoqcrcoaiv "not that
they should remain sinners, but that they should repent."
The second place is John xiv. 26 : Spiritus Sanctus suggeret
vobis omnia, qucecunque dixero vobis. The papists abuse this
passage to prove, that whatever is denned in councils should be
received as the oracles of the Holy Spirit. But in the Greek it is
not "I shall say," but, "I have said," a CITTOV J/mli/. Bellarmine
says that the sense is the same as in the Greek ; since we are to
understand it to mean, not " what I shall then say," but " what I
shall now say."
I answer. The papists seize greedily upon all occasions, how
ever futile and absurd, to gain proof for their dogmas, and not
seldom use arguments which are founded only in the errors of a
translation. Thus from this place they gather that the Holy Ghost
is the author of all the dogmas which they have invented and
confirmed in their councils, although they cannot be supported by
any scripture evidence. But Christ did not promise that he would
hereafter say something which the Holy Ghost should teach them,
but that what he had already said to them should be recalled to
their mind and memory by the Holy Ghost. For Christ says not,
TrdvTa a av ei7ro&gt; Vfj.1v, but a elirov v^lv. Christ, therefore, had
already told them all; but they had not yet learned it accurately
enough, nor committed it to memory. Whence the falsehood of
Bellarmine s exposition sufficiently appears ; since Christ does not
say, as he supposes, "The Spirit shall suggest to you whatever I
ehall now say," but " whatever I have already said to you :" for a
elirov does not mean " what I shall say," but " what I have said."
Thus the Latin version of this place is false, and even Bellarmine s
own exposition proves it false.
The third place is Rom. i. 4 : Qui prcedestinatus est films
Dei. In the Greek it is opiaOevTos, i. e. who was declared or
manifested. Bellarmine tells us that op u(eiv never in the scrip
tures means to declare, and that all the Latins read thus, Qui
prazdestinatus est.
I answer. Firstly, that opi^eiv in this place does denote " to
declare," as Chrysostom interprets it, who cannot be supposed
ignorant of the just force and significance of the word. For
having, in his first Homily upon the Romans, put the question, TI
XII.] QUESTION THE SECOND.
ovv eo-riv opLaOei Tos ; he subjoins as synonymous terms,
TOS, aTTotyavOevTos, KpiOevTos where he teaches us that
in this passage means nothing else but to declare, shew, or judge.
In the same way CEcumenius asserts that TOV opiaOevTos is equi
valent to TOV a.Tro^ei xOevTos or eTriyviDaOevTos. Nor do Theodoret
or Theophylact vary from this explanation : so that Bellarmine s
confident assertion is manifestly destitute of all truth. What may
be said with truth is, that neither in the scriptures nor anywhere
else does opifyiv mean the same thing as to predestinate.
Secondly, the Latin fathers followed the Vulgate translator,
by whom this word is unskilfully and absurdly rendered, as Eras
mus and Faber and Cajetan tell us, and as every one who knows
any thing of Greek must needs confess. As to Bellarmine s
assertion, that defined and predestinated are perfectly equivalent
terms, I leave it without hesitation to the general judgment of all
learned men.
The fourth place is Rom. i. at the end, where we have in the
Vulgate edition, Qui cum justitiam Dei cognovisscnt, non intellex-
erunt, quoniam qui talia agunt digni sunt morte ; non solum qui
ea faciunt, sed etiam qui consentiunt facientibus 1 . Chemnitz,
Valla, Erasmus, and others, agree that this place is corrupt. For
in the Greek text it runs thus : otTii/es TO SiKaiw/uia TOV GeoD
eVi yi OJ Tes (on o\ TO. TOICLVTO. TrpacrcrovTes aioi OCLVCLTOV eicnV)
ov fjiovov avTa TToiova-iv, ctAAa KOL avvevcoKovcrt roTs Trpctaraovo i.
Yet Bellarmine is not ashamed to say that the Latin reading is the
truer. For, says he, according to the Greek the sense is, that it
is worse to consent to an evildoer than to do ill oneself; whereas,
taken absolutely, it is worse to do ill than to consent to another
doing ill.
I answer : Bellarmine is not very accurate in his estimate of
the magnitude of sins. For to have pleasure in the wicked is one
of those gravest sins, which are not committed but by the most
abandoned men. To sin at all is of itself impious, and deserves
eternal punishment, however much it be done against our better con
science and with internal struggles ; but to approve our sins and
those of other men, to deem them well done, to applaud them in
our feelings and judgment, and to take pleasure in sins (which is
[ l This reading of the Vulgate is however strongly supported by the
Clermont MS., and the apparent citation in Clement s 1 Ep. ad Cor. c. 35
(pp. 120, 122, ed. Jacobson). Mill and Wetstein declare in its favour; but see
on the other side Whitby, Examen Var. Lect. n. 1. 1. n. 16.]
* 132
196 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
what the apostle means by a-vvevSoKeiv), is almost the very height
and climax of iniquity. This is the assent which Paul condemns
in this place, and which is indeed almost the last step in sin. The
sense of the Greek therefore is very true ; and is what is given by
the Greek interpreters, Chrysostom, Theodoret, CEcumenius and
Theophylact. And in all the Greek copies which Stephens followed,
that is, all which he could by any means procure, there was no
variety of reading in this place. That the Latin fathers read it
otherwise, need not surprise us ; since they did not consult the
originals, but drew from the streams of this Vulgate translator.
And though Bellarmine affirms the Latin text to be altogether pre
ferable to the Greek, yet other papists entertain an altogether dif
ferent opinion. " To speak my mind freely," says Catharinus,
upon the first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, " the Greek
reading pleases me far better. The construction runs on easily and
without any rubs 1 ."
The fifth place is Rom. iv. 2 ; where Abraham is said not to
have been justified by works. In their Latin edition it is added
" of the law," as if the apostle were speaking of the ceremonies of
the law. But Bellarmine says that all, or almost all, the Latin
copies omit the word legis. This I admit, if he speak of the copies
at present generally in men s hands : for some centuries ago all,
or almost all, the copies had legis, as is plain from some ancient
fathers, the scholastic divines, Lyra, Aquinas, Carthusianus, and
others. How the passage ought to be understood, and what kinds
of works the Apostle excludes from justification, shall be explained
hereafter in its proper place.
The sixth place is Rom. xi. 6 ; where these words are omitted,
" But if it be of works, then is it not of grace : otherwise work is
no more work 2 ." Bellarmine confesses that this sentence is in the
Greek, but says that it is recognised by none of the commentators
upon this place except Theophylact. Which assertion is wholly
untrue ; since CEcumenius exhibits and explains this same sentence,
as also Theodoret and Chrysostom : which latter he nevertheless
affirms, naming him expressly, not to have made any mention of
this sentence. Bellarmine did not examine Chrysostom in this
f 1 Ne quid autem dissimulem, longe magis mi placet Grseca lectio :
facile procedit litera et sine ullo scrupulo. Comm. in Epp. Paul. p. 21. Paris.
1566.]
[ 2 This clause is omitted in the Alexandrian, and several other ancient
MSS.]
XII.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 197
place, but gave too much credit to Erasmus, who falsely denies that
it is to be found in Chrysostom 3 . For Chrysostom reads it thus :
el Se ef epywv OVK en eeri ^api^ CTTCI TO epyov OVK en eorrt
cpyov. But what if the clause were not to be found in the
commentaries of these writers ? Must we, therefore, deem it
spurious ? By no means. For the Greek copies, and very nu
merous MSS. of the greatest fidelity, and the most ancient Syrian
translator, will suffice to prove that this sentence came from the
apostle s pen; whose evidence is still more confirmed by the very
antithesis of the context and the sequence of the reasoning. For,
as the apostle says, " If it be of grace, then it is not of works ; for
then grace would not be grace ;" so to balance the antithesis he
must say, "If it be of works, it is not of grace ; for then work
would not be work."
The seventh place is Eph. v. 32 : Sacramentum hoc magnum
est. Where our divines have no other complaint to make, but that
the papists abuse the ambiguity of the term to prove that matrimony
is a sacrament. For the word in the Greek is /mvcrTriptov, which
is never in scripture used to denote what we properly call a sacra
ment. It is absurd, therefore, for the schoolmen to conclude from
this place that matrimony is a sacrament. Cajetari s words are
these 4 : "A prudent reader will not gather from this place that
Paul teaches that marriage is a sacrament. For he does not say,
This is a sacrament, but a great mystery." For which true speech
of his the cardinal receives hard usage from Ambrose Catharinus in
the fourth book of his Annotations.
The eighth place is Eph. vi. 13 : Ut possitis resistere in die
malo, et in omnibus perfecti stare. In the Greek it is aTravra
KaTepyaadimevoi, which does not mean perfect in all things.
Some explain the passage as if it were omnibus perfectis, " all
things being complete," that is, when ye have procured and put on
all the arms which are needful to you for this warfare. But
Chrysostom (followed here by GEcumenius) hath better understood
the force of the verb KaTcpydcraaOai. For KarepydvacrOai
denotes to conquer completely, to subdue and quell all the powers
of an adversary. The panoply here spoken of enables us not only
to resist in the evil day, but also airavra Karepyavdnevoi, that is,
[ 3 It is indeed in the Text, but not in the Commentary.]
[ 4 Non habet ex hoc loco prudens lector a Paulo, conjugium esse sacra-
mentum. Non enim dicit sacramentum, sed, Mysterium hoc magnum est.
p. 278. 2. Paris. 1571.]
198 THE FIRST CONTROVERST. [CH.
having quelled and taken out of the way (for so Chrysostom and
QEcumenius explain the apostle s expression) whatever opposes us,
to stand firm ourselves and unconquered.
Bat this is quite a different thing from the reading in the old
books, in omnibus perfecti ; from which false rendering false ex
planations also have arisen. Thomas explains the words "in all
things" to mean in prosperity and in adversity ; and here he makes
out a twofold perfection 1 , one of the way, the other of the home;
which, although they are true in themselves, are things wholly
impertinent to the passage before us.
The ninth place is Heb. ix. 28 : Ad multorum exhaurienda
peccata. In the Greek it is, et? TO 7ro\\cov aveveyiteiv d/mapr tcis
which means, " to bear away the sins of many." Now sins are
borne away when they are remitted, which takes place in this
life ; but they are exhausted or drained off, when we are wholly
purified and no remains of sin left in us, which does not take place
in this life. For, since our adversaries seize on the most slender
occasions to sophisticate the truth, the Holy Spirit must be every
where vindicated from their calumnies. Now whereas Bellarmine says
that the translator hath rendered this place with great propriety, I
would desire him to produce an example where aveveyKeiv means
to exhaust. For, although avcxpepto means "to bear upward," yet
bearing up and drawing are not the same thing as exhausting or
draining. He who draws from a fountain, does not consequently
exhaust the fountain itself. But dixxpepew more frequently denotes
"to take away or bear;" as, both in this place and another similar
one, 1 Peter ii. 24, Christ is said dveveyicelv ets TO %v\ov our
sins, that is, "to have borne them on the tree," as there even the
old translator hath rendered it.
The tenth place is Heb. xiii. 16: Talibus hostiis promeretur
Deus. In the Greek it is, ToiavTais Ovcriais evapecrTeiTai o GeoV
" with such sacrifices God is well pleased." Bellarmine is not
ashamed to produce a defence of his own, such as it is, for this
place also. In Latin, says he, one is correctly said to deserve
well of the person whom he gratifies by his actions.
I answer in the first place, that I grant that amongst men
there is room for merit, since all things are not due to all. It
may therefore be correctly said, that we deserve well of those
P P. 171. Antverp. 1591. The Schoolmen were fond of the distinction
of Via and Domus ; meaning by the former, the present, and by the latter,
the eternal life.]
XII.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 199
upon whom we have bestowed any benefit which hath flowed merely
from our own free choice. But when the matter is between us
and God, farewell all merit ; since whatever we do pleasant to him,
we yet do no more than we already owed to him. Wherefore
when we have done all that we can do in any way, we are never
theless still, as Christ expresses it, a-^pelot SovXot. Besides, I ask
Bellarmine whether, in their theology, to deserve well of God means
nothing more than to do what is pleasing to him. I would it were
so : for then they would not err so much upon the merit of works.
We ourselves say that the good works of the saints are grateful
and pleasant to God ; but the whole dispute is about the merit of
works. Lastly, how senseless is this expression, Talibus hostiis
promeretur Deus !
The eleventh place is James v. 1 5 : Et alleviabit eum Dominus.
In the Greek it is, K al eyepel avrov o Kvpios. "And the Lord
shall raise him up." Here Bellarmine disputes, by the way, upon
the effects of extreme unction against Chemnitz. Although there
is no capital fault in the translation, yet the place might be more
correctly rendered than it is by the Latin interpreter. As to.
their popish unction, James makes no mention of it here; as
Cajetan himself abundantly teaches us in his commentary upon the
passage. His words are : " Neither in terms, nor in substance,
do these words speak of the sacramental anointing of extreme
unction 2 ;" which he proves by three very solid arguments drawn
from the passage itself. But this is not the place for disputing
concerning the sacramental unction.
The last place is 1 John v. 13 : Hcec scribo vobis, ut sciatis
quoniam vitam habetis ceternam, qui creditis in nomine Filii Dei.
And so indeed the text is exhibited in some Greek copies, as
Robert Stephens informs us in his Greek Testament. But the
majority, even the Complutensian, otherwise, thus: TO.VTO. ypa\]/a
V/LLIV TOIS 7ri(JTVOV&lt;TlV t TO OVO/U.a TOV YiOV TOV GeOf, ll Ct
on &lt;corji&gt; alcoviov eere, Kal ( iva TTLarTevrjre et9 TO ovo/ua
TOV Yfoy TOV Qeov. But we do not choose to raise any great
contention with oar opponent upon the reading of this passage,
since there is no difference in the sense. For Bellarmine s attempt
to shew that it is better in the Latin than in the Greek, because
there was no need to admonish them to do what they had done
already, is a mode of reasoning unworthy of so great a theologian.
[ 2 Nee ex verbis, nee ex effectu, verba hsec loquuntur de sacramental!
unctione extremse unctionis. p. 419.]
200 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
For we too often admonish men to do what they are doing, ac
cording to that saying, Qui monet ut facias quod jam fads ; and
this is a thing of constant occurrence in the scriptures. Thus
those who believe in Christ are to be perpetually admonished to
increase and remain constant in that faith.
And now Bellarmine thinks that he hath satisfactorily answered
all our charges against the old translation of the new Testament.
But how small a portion is this of the errors which may be found
and censured in that version ! I am disposed therefore to bestow
a little more time upon examining it, and producing some more
of its faults, not all indeed (for that would be a tedious and difficult
task), but still too many, so as to enable you the better to judge
how very far it is from being pure and authentic.
Matth. iii. 2, the old version hath, appropinquabit regnum
coelorum. In the Greek it is fjyyufe, " hath drawn nigh." So
also in chap. iv. 17. In Matth. iv. 4, the word "openly" is
omitted in the old version, though the Greek text is, aVo&oo-et crot
cv TUJ (pavepw. And v. 7, the old translator renders /uJ /Bctrro-
\oyr](Tr}Te by nolite multum loqui. But fiarroXoyeiv means
something different from much speaking. For Christ does not
prohibit long prayers, but the tedious and hypocritical repetition
of the same words. At v. 11, he hath rendered aprov eiriovcriov
by panem super substantialem. And v. 25 in the Latin runs thus :
Ne solliciti sitis animce vestrce quid manducetis. In the Greek,
ri (payrjTe Kai T L Trirjre " What ye shall eat and what ye shall
drink." At v. 32, in the Latin, Scit Pater vester : in the Greek,
6 Ylarrjp V/ULWV o ovpdvtos. Chap. vii. 14, in the Latin, Quam
angusta porta ! In the Greek, on arevrj r] irvXrj " For strait
is the gate." Chap. ix. 8, timuerunt occurs in the Latin, instead
of " they wondered," since the Greek hath eOavfjiacrav. Chap. ix.
15, Filii sponsi for the "children of the bride-chamber," the
Greek being o\ v\ol TOV vu,u(fHovo$. The same mistake recurs
Luke v. 34. Chap. xiv. 3, the name of Philip is omitted in the
Latin, though exhibited by the Greek copies. He was the brother
of Herod, whose wife the impious Herod had united to himself in
an incestuous union. Verse 21, the Latin reads, quinque millia ;
in the Greek it is, wcrel TrevTaKicr^iXioi, " about five thousand."
Verse 26, the word, " the disciples," is omitted : for in the Greek
we have i&Wes avrov o\ jua^ra*, where the Latin gives only
videntes eum. Chap. xv. 8, in the Latin, Populus hie labiis me
konorat ; but in the Greek, eyyifyt fj.oi o Xaoe oJro? rw
XIT.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 201
Kal roT? ^eiXccri /me Ttjua " This people drawcth nigh
unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips." At
v. 31 there is nothing to express " the maimed to be whole/
though the Greek hath KvXXovs vyiels.
Chap. xvii. 19 : in the Latin, Quare nos non potuimus ejicere
ilium ? instead of illud " it," that is, the demon ; for the Greek is,
Kf3a\6^v avro. Chap, xviii., in the last verse, there is nothing
in the Latin corresponding to TO. TrapaTTTw/maTa CIVTCOV, " their
offences," in the Greek. Chap. xix. 7 stands thus in the Latin :
Quid me interrogas de bono ? unus est bonus, Deus. But in most,
and the most correct, Greek copies, we read, TI /me Xeyeis dyaQop;
ov&cls dya9os, el M els, o 6eos* that is, " Why callest thou me
good ? There is none good but one, God." Chap. xx. 9 : in the
Latin, acceperunt singulos denarios, instead of " every man a
penny;" for the Greek hath eXafiov a\&gt;a Srjvapiov. And the
like mistake is made again in the next verse. At verse 15, we
have in the Latin, aut non licet mi quod volo facere ? instead of,
" is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own ?" In
the Greek, rj OVK e^caTi ,aoi Troirjorai o OeXw ev TO?S e/uol? ; Chap.
xxi. 30: Eo, domine, is in the Latin instead of, "I, Sir," eyw,
Kvpie. Chap. xxiv. 6 : Opiniones prceliorum, in the Latin, for
" rumours of wars," a/coas TroXe/xw^. Chap. xxvi. 61 : Sia rpiwv
riiuLepwv, which means, " in three days," is rendered in the old
version post triduum ; and v. 71, the Latin hath exeunte illo
januam, instead of, " when he went out into the vestibule," since
the Greek is e^eXOovra 619 TOV TrvXtova. Chap, xxviii. 2, in the
Latin, after the words revolvit lapidem, there is an omission of
" from the door,"" diro 0vpas.
Mark ii. 7, the Latin reads : Quid hie sic loquitur ? blas-
phemat; instead of, " Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies?"
Tt ovro&lt;s ovro) XaXel /BXao-^^/u/a? ;
Mark iii. 39, in the Latin, Reus erit ceterni delicti, instead
of "eternal judgment," alwviov Kpia-ecos. Mark xiv. 14, in the
Latin there is, Ubi est refectio mea ? instead of, " Where is the
guest-chamber ?" TTOV ecrri TO KaTaXv/ma ;
Luke i. 28 in the Latin runs thus, Ave, gratia plena ; but
K&)(aptTWf*.vij is " highly favoured " or " freely loved," not " full
of grace." Luke ii. 40, the Latin hath, puer crescebat et con-
fortabatur, wherein " in spirit" is left out 1 . Luke iii. 13, in the
Latin, nihil amplius, quam quod constitutum est vobis, faciatis.
is omitted in some Greek MSS. also. See Grotius in loc.]
202 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
But in this place vrpdcro-etv does not mean " to do," but " to ex
act ;" for it is the publicans that the Baptist here addresses. Luke
vi. 11, in the Latin, ipsi repleti sunt insipientia, instead of, " with
madness ;" 7r\tjcr6r]crav avolas. Luke xi. 53, the old translator
renders, airo&lt;jTonaTi(eii&gt; O.VTOV CTTI TrXeiovwv by, os ejus opprimere
de multis ; absurdly, since it means that they pressed him to
speak of many things 1 . Luke xiii. 3, 4, runs thus in the Latin,
nisi poenitentiam habueritis, omnes similiter peribitis : sicut illi
decem et octo, instead of, " or those eighteen," &c. Luke xv. 8,
Evertit domum, instead of everrit, " she sweeps ;" crapoi rr\v oiKiav.
A shameful and manifest error, which the Louvain editors perceived,
but would not correct ; I suppose on account of its antiquity, for
thus hath the place been constantly read in their churches for
many ages. The Ordinary Gloss interprets this woman to mean
the church, who then turns her house upside down when she
disturbs men s consciences with the conviction . of their guilt.
But Dionysius Carthusianus hath a somewhat better explanation
of the way in which the house is turned upside down, that is,
when the contents of the house are carried about from one place
to another, as people are wont to do when they search diligently
for any thing. Nay, what surprises one still more, Gregory of
Home, a thousand years ago, read and expounded evertit domum,
Horn. 34 in Evangel. : so ancient are many of the errors of this
translation. In the same chapter, verse 14, we have postquam
omnia consummasset, instead of consumpsisset, SairavrjcravTos.
Chap. xvi. 22 is read thus in the Latin, Sepidtus est in inferno.
Elevans autem ocnlos, fyc. Whereupon some Latin doctors and
interpreters run out into many philosophical speculations concerning
the burial of the rich man in hell, which are all derived from the
erroneous version of the place. For it ought to have been read, as
it is read with great unanimity by the Greek copies, " The rich
man also died, and was buried :" where Euthymius justly observes,
that mention of the burial was made in the case of the rich, and not
of the poor man ; because the poor man had a mean grave, whereas
the funeral of the rich man was performed with splendour and
magnificence. Then in the text a new sentence begins, " And in
hell raising up his eyes," &c. Chap. xix. last verse, Omnis
[i a7roo-To/jcmVii&gt; rather means to require one to speak off-hand and
without premeditation. The reader will find all the learning of the ques
tion, as to the sense of this word, in Grotius upon Luke xi. 53, and Runkhen s
note upon the word in Timseus Lex. Platon.J
XII.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 203
populus susjiensus erat, audiens ilium, instead of, " All the people
hung upon him while they heard him." o Xctos aVas e^eKpefjctro
auTov OLKOVCOV.
John, chap. v. 16, after the words, persequebantur Judcei
Jesum, the clause, " and desired to slay him," KCII e^Tovv CLVTOV
aTTOKTelvat, is left out. Chap. xii. 35 : Adhuc modicum lumen in
vobis, for, " yet a little while is the light with you," en viKpov
~povov TO (pws /me#* vfjiwv eo-Ti. Chap. xxi. 22 : Sic eum volo
manere donee veniam. Quid ad te ? Whence some, deceived
by the error of this version, have supposed John to be still alive.
But we ought to read, " If I will that he tarry till I come, what
is that to thee ?" In the Greek, em&gt; avrov 9e\w i^eveiv ecos e/X~
/mat, ri TTjOos ere ;
Acts ii. 42 : Et communication fractionis panis, for, " in
communion and breaking of bread," mi Trj Koivwviq. KOI rrj
K\a&lt;rei TOV aprov. And at the last verse, in idipsum 2 , for, "the
church," rrj e/c/cXr/tnV Chap. iii. 18 : Qui prcenunciavit, for,
" which things he foretold," a TrpoKariiyyeiXe. Chap. x. 30 :
Usque ad hanc horam, orans eram hora nona, instead of, "I
was fasting until this hour, and at the ninth hour I was pray
ing :" ju.e%pt Taurus TJ}? wpas rjfjLrjv vricrTevduir 3 , Kal TYJV evvarrjv
wpav 7TjOocrey^O|uiei/o9. Also at the close of verse 32, these
words, " who when he is come shall speak to thee," 09 Trapaye-
vofjievos \a\rja-ei croc, are omitted. Chap. xii. 8 : Calcea te caligas
tuas, for, "bind on thy sandals," vwo^rjorat TO. o-avSaXtd aou.
Chap. xvi. 13 : Ubi videbatur oratio esse, for, " where prayer
was wont to be made," ov eVo^^ero Trpoaev^ elvai. Chap, xviii.
5 : Instabat verbo Paulus, for, " Paul was bound in the spirit,"
GvveLyeTo TCO Trvev/uLan. In the same chapter at verse 16,
Minavit eos a tribunali, for, "he drave them from the judgment-
seat," aTrrjXaaev. And at verse 21, this clause is omitted, " I
must by all means keep this feast which cometh on in Jerusalem 4 :"
AeT jue 7rai/Ta&gt;s Tqv eopTrjv rrjv ep^ofjievtjv Tcoir\(jai et? le^oocro-
Ayjua. Chap, xix., in the last verse : Cum nullus obnoxius sit, for,
" since there is no cause," /urj^evos airiov VTrdp^ovTos. Chap,
xxii. 12: Vir secundum legem, for, *"a pious man according to
[ 2 The mistake arose from connecting the words eVi ro dvrb, which form
the commencement of the next chapter, with the close of this one. The
Ethiopic agrees with the Vulgate in omitting rfj eKK\r)&lt;rta.]
[ 3 Some MSS. agree with the Vulgate in omitting
[ 4 It is omitted in the Alex, and several other MSS.]
204 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
the law," avrjp evvefiw. Chap. xxiv. 14 : Quod secundum sec-
tarn, quam dicunt hceresin, sic deservio Patri Deo meo, instead
of, " that according to the way which they call heresy, so worship
I the God of my fathers :" OTL KCLTO. Ttjv ocV, fjv \eyovviv
cLipeaiv, ouTO) \aTpeva) TM TrctTpwo) Oeu&gt;. Chap, xxvii. 42 : Ut
custodias occiderent, for, "that they should slay the prisoners 1 ,"
e/ t ft / i
LVa TOV&lt;S V(TfJL(t)TaS CLTTOKTClVWO l.
Eom. ii. 3 : Quod judicas, instead of, " thou that judgest,"
o KpivMv. Chap. v. 6 : Ut quid enim Christus, cum adhuc
infirmi essemus, fyc., instead of, " for Christ, when we were yet
without strength," CTI yap Xptcrro? OVTWI r]^wv aaBevwv. And
verse 13 : Peccatum non imputabatur? cum lex non esset, for,
" sin is not imputed where there is no law," a/uLapTia OVK eXXo-
ye~iTai HJLY} (Wo? vonov. Chap. vii. 25 : Quis me liberabit de
corpore mortis hujus ? Gratia Dei per Jesum Christum, for,
" I thank God through Jesus Christ," ev-^apiaTO} TW Bew Sia
Itjcrou XpicrTov. Chap. viii. 18 : Existimo quod non sunt dignw
passiones, #c., for, " I reckon for certain," ^oyi^ofjLat. Chap. xii.
19: Non vosmet ipsos defendentes, instead of, "avenging,"
K$IKOVVTS. Chap. xiii. 1 : Quce autem sunt a Deo, ordinata
sunt 2 , for, "the powers that be, are ordained of God," a\ e
ovcrai efovcriai, VTTO TOV 0eoi} TeTa.yfj.evai eicriv. Chap. xiv. 5 :
Unusquisque in suo sensu abundet, for, "let each be fully per
suaded in his own mind," e/cacrro? ev TW iSiw vo*i f n-\rjpo&lt;popei&lt;jOa}.
And at verse 6 is omitted, " and he that regardeth not the day, to
the Lord he doth not regard it," KOI o fi^ (ppovcov TYJV rj^epav
Kvpiw ou (ppovel. Chap. xvi. 23 : Salutat vos Gains hospes
meus, et universa ecclesia, for, " and of the whole church,"
KCLI Trjs eK/cXjycrm? oX&gt;/9.
1 Cor. iii. 5 : Ministri ejus cui credidistis, for, " ministers by
whom ye believed," SiaKovoi Si uv eTria-TevcrctTe. Verse 9 : Dei
adjutores, instead of, "administrators or co-operators, crvvepyoi.
Chapter vi. last verse : In corpore vestro, omitting 3 , " and in your
spirit, which are God s," KCU ev Tip irvev^aTi VJULWV, CLTLVCL earTt
TOV Qeov. Chapter ix. 22 : Ut omnes salvos faciam, for, " that
[ l Instances however are found in good authors of Custodia meaning a
prisoner as well as a guard. I need not cite instances of a meaning given
in every common dictionary.]
[ 2 The fault is in the stopping. It should be, " Quse autem sunt, a Deo
ordinatse sunt."]
[ 3 This clause is omitted also in the Alexandrian and several other MSS.]
XII.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 205
I may by all means save some," iva TrdvrcosTtvds crco creu 4 . Chap.
xv. 23 : Delude ii qui sunt Christi, qui in adventum ejus credi-
derunt, for, "then those who are Christ s at his coming," eTretra
vl XpicTTov ev Trj Trapovaia CIVTOV. Verse 34 : Ad reverentiam
vobis loquor, for, " I speak to inspire you with shame," 717)09
evrpoirriv vjuuv Xeyw. Verse 51 : Omnes quidem resurgemus,
sed non omnes immutabimur, instead of, " We shall not indeed all
sleep, but we shall all be changed," Wvrey nev ou ffot/utydtycro/uefta,
Trdvres $e d\\ayrj(j6fjLeOa 5 . Verse 54, there is omitted, " when
this corruptible shall have put on incorruption," orav TO (f)9aprov
TOUTO ei^ucrrjrai d(p9apcriav. Verse 55 : Ubi est mors stimulus
tuus ? for, " Where is thy victory, grave or hell?" TTOU o~ou acrj
TO VIKOS ;
2 Cor. i. 11: Ut ex multarum personis facierum ejus quce in
nobis donationis, per multos gratice agantur pro nobis. The
words in the Greek are, r iva e/c TroXXwi^ Trpoawn-wv TO ets rjnas
^dptcrima Sid iroXXwv cv^apiffTrjOri vwep j/juwi/ that is, "that the
gift conferred upon us by many persons may be celebrated by
many in returning thanks on our account." Chapter vii. 8 : Non
me pcenitet etsi pwniteret, instead of, "I do not repent, though I
did repent," ou yuerayue Xo/xcu, et /ecu //ere/xeAo^i . Chapter ix. 1 :
Ex abundanti est mi scribere, for, "it is superfluous," Trepitjaov
pot eari. Chap. xii. 11 : Factus sum insipiens, omitting the next
word " in boasting," KO.V ^o/uei o?.
Gal. iii. 24 ; Lex pcedagogus noster fait in Christo, for " to
Christ," et9 Xpia-Tov. Chap. iv. 18 : Bonum cemulamini in bono
semper, for, " it is good to be zealously affected always in a good
thing ;" KctXoV TO fyjXovcrOai ev KCL\M irdvTore* At the end of
this chapter the words, Qua libertate Christus nos liberavit, should
be joined with the commencement of the next chapter. " In the
liberty, wherewith Christ hath made us free, stand fast :" T^
eXeuOepiq, f] Xpio~Tos rna&lt;$ tjXevOepcoare o-TijKere.
Eph. i. 22, Super omnem ecclesiam, instead of, " over all
things to the church," v-jrep irdvra Trj eKKXrjcriqi. Chap. ii. 10 :
Creati in Christo Jesu in operibus bonis f for, " to good works, eirl
[ 4 Several MSS. read TTUVTUS for Travr^s rivas, and Mill was disposed to
think it the true reading.]
[ 5 There is here considerable difference in the MSS. The Clermont
reads with the Vulgate. Lachmann s text gives navrts [/i/] Koi/iT/^o-o/ze&z,
oi iravTfs Se aXXayj/cro/xe^a, following the Alexandrian MS. though not
exactly.]
206 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
epyols ayaOdis. Chap. v. 4, Quce ad rem non pertinent, for,
" which are not convenient :" ra /ur; dv^Kovra.
Col. ii. 14 : Chirographum decreti, for, " contained in ordi
nances," ToTs coyfjiaaiv.
2 Thess. ii. 13: legit nos Dominus primitias 1 in salutem,
instead of, " from the beginning," aw ap^r}?.
1 Tim. vi. 5 : It omits, " withdraw from those that are such 2 ,"
a(pi&lt;TTa&lt;jo CCTTO TWV TOIOVTCOV. 2 Tim. ii. 4 : Ut ei placeat, cui
se probavit, for, " that he may please him who hath chosen him
to be a soldier:" "iva rw crTpaToKoyricravTi apeo-rj*
Philem. 9 : Cum sis talis ut Paulus senex, instead of, " since
I am such an one as Paul the aged."
Heb. i. 3 : Purgationem peccatorum faciens, omitting the
words, " by himself," Si eavrov 3 . Heb. iii. 3 : Quanta ampliorem
honor em habet domus*, for, "as he that built it hath more honour
than the house," &c. Heb. xii. 8 : Ergo adulteri 5 et non filii
estis, for "bastards and spurious, not sons:" apa voOoi ecrre, KO.I
ov-% VIOL. In the same chapter, verse 18, accessibilem 6 ignem, for,
"inflamed with fire," /ce/caf/xe^ TrupL
James i. 19: Scitis,fratres mei dilectissimi, instead of, "Where
fore, my beloved brethren," wcrre 7 , dSe\&lt;poi /mow ayctTrrjToi.
1 Pet. ii. 5 : Supercedificamini domos spirituales, for, " a
spiritual house," ol/cos TrvevjjLaTiKos. Ibid, verse 23: Tradebat
autem judicanti se injuste, for, &lt;c that judgeth righteously," TW
KpLvovn Sticaiws. 1 Pet. iv. 14, it leaves out, " on their part he is
blasphemed, but on your part he is glorified 8 :" /cara /uei&gt; aJroi)?
/3\aor(p^fJLiTai 9 fcara oe J//.a? oo^a^erai.
2 Pet. i. 3 : Quomodo omnia nobis divince virtutis suce, quce
[! The Vulgate translator seems to have read aTrapx^v, (which is still
exhibited by some Greek MSS.) unless, indeed, primitias be itself a corrup
tion of primitus.]
[ 2 The clause is also omitted by the Alexandrian, Clermont, and other
ancient MSS., and by the Ethiopic and Coptic versions.]
[ 3 They are omitted in the Alex, and Vatican MSS., and several others.]
[ 4 But domus is here in the genitive, being governed of ampliorem, to
correspond, barbarously enough, with the Greek construction.]
[ 5 But adulter is used adjectively in the sense of adulterinus, by Pliny,
N. H. L. 33. c. 7.]
[ 6 Here we should read " accensibilem," the translator taking
to agree with nvpl, as ^Xa^co/teVo) does with S pei. See Grotius in loc.]
[ 7 The Alex., Vatican, and some other MSS. read iVre.]
[ 8 It is omitted in the Alex, and some other MSS.]
XII.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 207
ad vitam et pietatem, donata sunt, for, " forasmuch as his divine
power hath given us all things that are needful for life and
godliness :" MS irdvTa. q/jiiv Trjs Oeias Suvdfjiews CIVTOV TO. Trpos
fyriv KOI evaefieiav SeSwprjiJLevw 9 : verse 16, indoctas fabulas se-
quuti, for " learned," crea-o0i&lt;7/uei/ots nvOois &lt;aKo\ou0qcravTes 9 and
in the same verse, Christi virtutem et prcescientiam for, " the
power and presence," ^vva/miv KOI vrapovcriav. 2 Pet. ii. 8 : Aspectu
enim et auditu Justus erat, habitans apud eos, qui de die in diem
animam justam iniquis operibus excruciabant ; instead of, " for in
seeing and hearing that righteous man, dwelling amongst them,
vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unrighteous
deeds :" fi\e[JL/u.aTi yap Kctl aicofj 6 $//ca/os, eyKarotKwv ev ctvrois,
riimepav ef Yj^epas ^v^v Sutaiav di/o/uioi epyow efiaadvi^ev.
1 John v. 17 : Et est peccatum ad mortem, for, "and there is
a sin not unto death;" KCU eorTiv a/mapTia ov Trpos QCLVCLTOV^.
3 John, 4. Majorem horum non habeo gratiam, for, " I have
no joy greater than these," mei(oTpav TOVTWV OUK e-^co -^apdv 11 .
Jude, 5 : Scientes semel omnia, for, " since ye know this once,"
el^oras dwa^ Tovro 12 . Rev. ii. 14: edere et fornicari, for, "to eat
those things which are sacrificed to idols, and to commit whore
dom :" (hayeiv etca)Ao$yra, /cat Tropveixjai,
I have selected a few instances from many. Were I to pursue
them all, I should make a volume. But these sufficiently prove the
infinite and inveterate faultiness of the old Latin Version in the new
Testament. Erasmus, therefore, when he desired a review of the
new Testament, preferred translating it anew according to the Greek
verity to spending his pains in correcting this old Latin edition.
In like manner, Isidore Clarius of Brescia 13 bemoans the wretched
and squalid plight of this edition in both Testaments, and wonders
at the negligence of learned men, who have never attempted to
remove the innumerable errors, under which he affirms it to labour,
adding that he hath himself noted and amended eight thousand
passages 14 .
Such is that edition, even by their own confession, which we
[ 9 A couple of unimportant MS S. read here forSoop^eVa with the Vulgate.]
[ 10 The ov is also omitted in the Ethiopia.]
[ n Some MSS. here read x&lt;*P tv with the Vulgate.]
[ 12 The Alex, and other most ancient MSS. here read iravTa with the Vul
gate. The Syriac appears to have read Trdvres.]
[ 13 In the preface to his edition of the Vulgate, Venice 1542.]
[ 14 Etsi ea quam diximus usi fuerirnus moderatione, loca tainen ad octo
208 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
are now forsooth, at the pleasure of the Tridentine Fathers, com
manded to receive as authentic scripture. But let them take to
themselves this old edition of theirs, while we, as the course to
which reason constrains us, and Augustine, Jerome, and other illus
trious divines persuade us, and even the ancient decrees of the
Roman pontiffs themselves admonish us, return to the sacred origi
nals of scripture.
CHAPTER XIII.
WHEREIN THE STATE OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING VERNACULAR
VERSIONS IS EXPLAINED.
WE have now completed the first part of this second question,
wherein we have proved that the authentic scripture lies not in the
Latin version of the old translator, as the Tridentine fathers and
the Jesuits would have it, but in the Hebrew and Greek originals.
We have obviated the arguments of our opponents, and confirmed
our own opinion. Now follows the second part of this question,
which hath two principal divisions. For we must, in the first place,
discuss vernacular versions of the scripture ; and, in the second
place, the performance of divine service in the vulgar tongue.
Upon both subjects there are controversies between us.
Now, as to vernacular versions of scripture, we must first of all
inquire what is the certain and fixed opinion of the papists there
upon. Concerning vernacular versions of scripture there are at the
present day three opinions entertained by men. The first, of those
who absolutely deny that the scriptures should be translated into
the vulgar tongue.
The second, the opposite of the former, is the opinion of those
who think that the holy scriptures should by all means be translated
into the vulgar tongues of all people.
The third is the opinion of those who neither absolutely con
demn, nor absolutely permit, vernacular versions of the scriptures,
but wish that in this matter certain exceptions should be made,
and regard had to times, places, and persons. This last is the
millia annotata atque emendata a nobis sunt. Of these " octo millia," Walton,
by what Hody calls " ingens memorise lapsus," has made octoginta millia erro-
rum. Proleg. . 10. (T. n. p. 250. Wrangham.)]
XIII.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 209
opinion held by the papists, and the judgment ratified at Trent.
They do not then seem to affirm that it is simply impious or un
lawful to translate the scriptures, or read them in the vulgar
tongue ; but they do not choose that this should be done com
monly or promiscuously by all, or under any other conditions than
those which the council hath prescribed.
There is extant concerning this matter a decree, in the fourth
rule of the index of prohibited books published by Pius IV., and
approved by the council of Trent ; which determination contains
four parts : first, that no man may read the scriptures in the vul
gar tongue, unless he have obtained permission from the bishops
and inquisitors : secondly, that the bishops should consult with the
parish priest and confessor : thirdly, that the bishops themselves
must not permit every kind of vernacular versions, but only those
published by some catholic author : fourthly, that the reading even
of these must not be permitted to every one, but only to those
who, in the judgment of their curates and confessors, are likely to
receive no damage therefrom, but rather an augmentation of faith,
those, that is, and those only, who they hope will be rendered
thereby still more perverse and obstinate. Such are the subtle
cautions of that decree ; whence it is evident that the reading of
the scriptures in the vulgar tongue is allowed to as small a number
of persons as possible. They subjoin to this a reason which looks
plausible at first sight ; that it hath appeared by experience that,
if the Bible were allowed to be read by all, without distinction,
more injury than advantage would result, on account of the rash
ness of mankind. The force of this argument we shall examine in
its proper place.
Our Rhemish brethren are profuse of words in praising this
decree, in the preface to their English version of the new Tes
tament. " Holy church," they say, " knowing by her divine and
most sincere wisedom, how, where, when, and to whom, these her
maisters and spouses gifts are to be bestowed to the most good of
the faithful ; and therefore, neither generally permitteth that
which must needs doe hurt to the unworthy, nor absolutely con-
demneth that which may do much good to the worthie 1 :" and so
they conclude that the scriptures, although translated truly and in
accordance with the catholic faith, must not be read by every one
who has a mind to read them, but only by those who are specially
and by name licensed by their ordinaries, and whom their curates
[ l Preface to the Reader, p. 4. Ithemes. 1582.]
[WHITAKER.]
210 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
and confessors have testified and declared to be fit and proper
readers of the same. Now then, you sufficiently perceive that all
men are excluded from the perusal of the scriptures in the vulgar
tongues, save those who shall have procured a licence to read them ;
and such a licence none can procure, but those who are certainly
known, by confession, and the whole course of their lives, to be
obstinate papists. Those, therefore, who might desire to read the
scriptures in order that they might learn from the scriptures the
true faith and religion, these, unless they first swear an absolute
obedience to the Roman pontiff, are by no means permitted to get
a glimpse of the sacred books of scripture. Who does not see that
the scriptures are taken from the people, in order that they may
be kept in darkness and ignorance, and that so provision may be
made for the safety of the Roman church and the papal sovereignty,
which could never hold its ground if the people were permitted to
read the scriptures ? Wretched indeed is that religion, and
desperate that state of things, where they are compelled to with
draw the scriptures from the eyes of men, and take off the people
from the reading of the scriptures ; which is the course pursued
by our adversaries, as is manifest from the decree of the Tridentine
council, and from the versions of the Khemists. Such is also the
opinion of Bellarmine, Lib. n. c. 15. To which let me subjoin the
testimony of Johannes Molanus, a divine of Louvain, and censor of
books to both the pope and the king ; who hath these words, in
his book of Practical Theology, Tract, in. c. 27 : " Yet we deny
that the study of the scriptures is required of them [laymen] ; yea,
we affirm that they are safely debarred the reading of the scrip
tures, and that it is sufficient for them to govern the tenor of their
life by the directions of the pastors and doctors of the church 1 ;"
than which nothing could be said more shocking to common sense
and decency. Similar to this is the opinion of Hosius, in his small
piece upon divine service in the vulgar tongue, and that of the
censors of Cologne against the preface of Monhemius. Sanders
too, in the seventh book of his Monarchia visibilis, says that it
is heretical to affirm that the scriptures ought necessarily to be
translated into the vulgar languages.
Such then is the determination of our adversaries. We, on the
[* Negamus tamen ab eis requiri studium scripturarum : imo salubriter
dicimus eos a lectione scripturarum arceri, sufficereque eis, ut ex prsescripto
pastorum et doctorum ecclesise yitse ciirsum moderentur. p. 105. 2. Colon.
1585.]
XIII.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 211
contrary, affirm that the reading of the scriptures should be com
mon to all men, and that none, however unlearned, should be
debarred or deterred from reading them, but rather that all should
be stirred up to the frequent and diligent perusal of them ; and
that, not only when the privilege of reading them is permitted by
their prelates, but also although their ordinaries and confessors
should prohibit it never so much.
Accordingly we say that the scriptures should be translated
into all the languages of Christendom, that all men may be enabled
to read them in their own tongue. This is declared by the confes
sion of all the churches. This is true ; and this we shall shew to be
agreeable to the scriptures. The state of the question, therefore,
is, whether or not vernacular versions of the scriptures are to be
set forth and permitted to all promiscuously. They hold the nega
tive, we the affirmative ; and we must first examine and refute
their arguments, and then apply ourselves to the support of our
own cause. Our attention shall be principally directed to our
Jesuit Bellarmine.
CHAPTER XIV.
WHEREIN THE ARGUMENTS OF OUR ADVERSARIES AGAINST
VERNACULAR VERSIONS ARE REFUTED.
THE first argument of the Jesuit, whereby he proves vernacu
lar versions by no means necessary, is drawn from the practice of
the church under the old Testament, from the time of Ezra until
Christ. He affirms, that from the times of Ezra the Hebrew
language ceased to be the vulgar tongue amongst the people of
God, and yet that the scriptures were in the church in Hebrew
after those times. But how does he prove that the Hebrew
language was then unknown to the people? Because, says he,
the Jews who dwelt in Babylon forgot their own language, and
learned the Chaldee, and thenceforward the Chaldee or Syriac
became their mother tongue. It remains that we listen to the tes
timonies by which all these statements are substantiated.
The first is taken from the old Testament, Nehem. viii. : where
we read that Nehemiah, and Ezra, and the Levites read the book
14 2
212 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
of the law to the people, and gave the interpretation, because the
people understood nothing of what was read to them ; but upon
Ezra s supplying the interpretation the people were greatly rejoiced,
because they then understood the words of the law.
I answer, in the first place, that the Jesuit hath grossly abused
that place in Nehemiah. For it is clear from the passage itself,
that the people did understand correctly enough the words which
were read to them ; whence it follows that the language was not
unknown to them. At verse 3, Ezra is said to have brought the
book of the law, and to have read in the presence of a multitude of
men and women, and as many as were capable of understanding,
that is, who were old enough to understand anything, or, as the
Hebrew expression is, who heard intelligently 1 . Therefore they
not only heard, but heard intelligently, that is, understood what
they heard. Hence, in verse 4, Ezra is said to have read before
the men and women, and those who understood ; and the people to
have had their ears attentive to the book of the law. Now, why
should the people have listened so attentively, if they did not un
derstand what they heard? In the same place, Ezra is related to
have read out of the book from morning until evening ; and, in
verse 19, every day for seven days, from the first day until the
last. Assuredly, he would not have taken so much trouble in read
ing, unless he had auditors who could understand him ; and it was
certainly very far from a prophets wisdom to assemble a multitude
of persons, then come forth into the midst of them, open the book,
and read so earnestly, and for the space of so many hours, what
the people could not at all understand. Besides, what was the rea
son of his reading (v. 9*) plainly, as Tremellius, or distinctly, as
the old translator renders it, but that, by that plain reading of the
scripture, the whole people might the better understand what was
being read to them ? For it is no matter whether you read well
or ill to those who understand nothing of what is read.
But Bellarmine objects that great joy was excited in the peo
ple, when by Ezra s interpretation they came to understand the
words of the law. What a subtle Jesuit ! He feigns that Ezra
first read to the people words which they did not understand, and
afterwards rendered or translated them into other words, and that
language with which the people were acquainted ; which is alto-
[ 2 ver. 8. in the Hebrew. The word is ttHSD .]
XIV.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 213
gether absurd. For Ezra read the words of the law openly and
publicly from a pulpit, and continued that reading through the
space of some hours, then expounded the scripture which had been
read, and opened up the sense and meaning of the words to the
people. For so at verse 9, the Levites are said "to have ex
pounded the sense, and given the meaning by the scripture itself,"
as Tremellius hath most correctly interpreted the passage. Vata-
blus hath translated it thus, " explaining the sense, and teaching
as they read 3 ;" which is not very different. And the old trans
lator thus, " Plainly that it might be understood ; and they under
stood when it was read 4 ;" which sufficiently proves that the people
understood what was read to them. Ezra was therefore said to be
skilful in the law, not because he could read and understand the
words and text of the law, but because he explained the sense and
meaning of the law, so as to enable the people to understand it.
And hence sprang that gladness, which the scripture tells us that
the people felt when they heard the law expounded by Ezra.
The thing is plain and certain, nor do we need the aid of com
mentaries.
The other testimony which the Jesuit uses in this matter, to
prove that Hebrew was not the vulgar tongue of the Jews after
Ezra, is drawn from the new Testament, from which it appears
that the people used the Syriac language. For Talitha cumi,
Mark v., Abba, Mark xiv., Aceldama, Acts i., and Matth xxvii.
Golgotha and Pascha, are neither Greek nor Hebrew. More ex
amples are given by Jerome in his book, de Nominib. Hebr. The
same fact is indicated by the saying, John vii., " This multitude
which knoweth not the law." Hence it is manifest that the Hebrew
was not at that time the mother tongue of the Jews.
I answer, in the first place, that this may, to some extent, be
allowed true, but that, in the sense in which Bellarmine affirms it,
it is altogether false. I acknowledge that the language was not
pure Hebrew, but corrupted with many alien and foreign terms, so
as to become, as it were, a new dialect compounded of Hebrew and
Chaldee. Yet, in the meanwhile, the people had not forgotten the
Hebrew language, neither immediately after the captivity, nor in
the succeeding times. For, Nehem. xiii., certain Jews are said
to have married wives of Ashdod, whose children spake in the
language of Ashdod, and not in Hebrew. The people in general
[ 3 Explicantes sententiam et erudientes inter legendum.]
[ 4 Aperte ad intelligendum ; et intellexerunt cum legeretur.]
2L4 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
therefore spoke Hebrew. Indeed it is impossible that, in the space
of seventy or even one hundred years, the people should so wholly
lose their native language as not even to understand it. If this
had been the case, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, prophets
who lived after the return would not have published their dis
courses in Hebrew, but in the vulgar tongue. It is, therefore,
absolutely certain, that the Jews understood Hebrew after the times
of Ezra.
Secondly, as to the terms which are not pure Hebrew in the
new Testament, the thing proved comes merely to what I have
observed already, that the language of the people had, at that
time, greatly degenerated from its native integrity ; yet not to
such a degree as would be inconsistent with supposing that Hebrew
was spoken by the better educated, and understood by all ; so as
that the scriptures, when publicly read in Hebrew, might be
understood by the people. Christ, therefore, John v. 39, bids
even the laity " search the scriptures." Greek they did not
understand ; and the Chaldee paraphrase was not then published,
or, if published, was unintelligible to them. It was the Hebrew
scriptures, therefore, which Christ commanded them to read ; which
command he never would have issued, if the people could not
understand the scriptures in the Hebrew language. The Jews
of Berea, also, of whom we have an account, Acts xvii. 11, searched
the scriptures diligently. So Christ read the prophet Isaiah in
the synagogue, as we find in Luke iv. 18 ; and no one doubts
that he read it in Hebrew. So Acts xv. 21, James says, that
" Moses of old times hath in every city them that preach him,
being read in the synagogues every sabbath-day." Whence also
it is plain, that avayivu&gt;GKeiv and Krjpva-creiv are different things.
And, Acts xiii. 15, "after the reading of the law and the prophets,"
Paul was desired to address the people if it seemed fit to him.
What end could it serve to read the scriptures so diligently in the
synagogues, and that the people should assemble every sabbath-day
to hear them read, if they were read in an unknown language ?
The title which Pilate affixed to the cross was inscribed with
Hebrew words, and many of the Jews read it, John xix. 20. And
Paul, Acts xxvi. 14, says that he heard Christ speaking to him " in
the Hebrew tongue." He himself also addressed the people in the
Hebrew tongue, Acts xxi. 40. And (chap. xxii. at the commence
ment) when they heard him speaking to them in the Hebrew
tongue, they kept the rather quiet, and rendered him still greater
XIV.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 215
attention. Theophylact observes upon that place, opqs TTWS avrovs
el\ TO o[jioio&lt;pcovov ; el-^ov yap TIVOL aicw Trpos TTJV yXwTTav
Kivr]i&gt; 1 , as much as to say, that they were caught by perceiving
his language to be the same as their own, and by a certain reve
rence which they entertained for that tongue. I produce these
testimonies not to prove this language to have been pure Hebrew ;
but to shew that it was not altogether different from the Hebrew,
since it is called Hebrew, and was understood by the people. Now
it could not be called Hebrew, if those who used it were not even
able to understand Hebrew. Although, therefore, it was full of
foreign mixtures, which the people had brought with them from
Babylon, or contracted from the neighbouring nations ; yet it re
tained a great deal of its native genius, enough to enable the
people, though they could not speak Hebrew as purely as in
former times, to recognise and understand the scriptures when read
to them in Hebrew. The difference is not so great as to prevent
this. For, although the dialect of the Scots and English, nay, of
the southern and northern English themselves, is not the same ; yet
the Scots read the English version of the scriptures in their
churches, and the people understand it. Thus the Jews, though
they did not speak pure Hebrew, as the Scots do not speak pure
English, could yet understand the scriptures when read to them
in Hebrew by their priests and Levites. Thus the bystanders
could sufficiently understand Peter, although they knew him to be
a Galilean by his manner of speaking. Matth. xxvi. 73. Formerly
the Greek language had various dialects, the Ionic, the Doric, and
the rest ; yet all Greeks were able to understand each other.
Thirdly, the Jesuit hath shamefully perverted the testimony
from John vii. 49 : " This multitude which knoweth not the law."
For the saying is to be understood not of the language, words, and
letters, but of the sense and meaning of the law. The Pharisees arro
gated to themselves a most exact knowledge of the law, and, puffed
up with that conceit, thus proudly despised the common people.
Now as to the assumption, that the scriptures were at that
time read in Hebrew in the synagogues, I acknowledge it to be
true. Why should they not have been read in Hebrew, when the
people understood them in that language ? Bellarmine ought to
have proved that the people could not understand the Hebrew
language ; and then he would have done something to the purpose.
But there are no proofs to demonstrate that assertion, which hath
t 1 Opp. T. m. p. 160. Vcnet. 1758.]
216 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
been already refuted by many arguments. For as to the objection
urged in the epitome of Bellarmine s lectures, that when Christ
exclaimed, JEli, Eli, lama sabachthani, some said that he called for
Elias, because they did not understand the language in which he
spoke, I reply, that it may be either that they mocked him
maliciously, or had not perfectly heard the words, or were soldiers
who were generally foreigners and Romans ; which latter sup
position is rendered probable by the circumstance that, whereas
Luke tells us that " the soldiers gave him vinegar to drink," chap,
xxiii. 36 ; Matthew writes, that one of those who said this hastily
filled a sponge with vinegar, and presented it to Christ, chap, xxvii.
48. Jerome explains it otherwise, supposing that the Jews, in
their usual manner, seized upon the occasion of maligning the Lord,
as if he implored the assistance of Elias through inability to defend
and deliver himself. Nothing, therefore, can be elicited from this
passage, to prove that the people did not understand the Hebrew
language.
The second argument is taken from the example and practice
of the apostles. For the apostles preached the gospel through the
whole world, and founded churches, as is plain from Rom. x., Col. i.,
Mark xvi., Irena3us, Lib. i. c. 3 1 , who says, that in his time
churches were founded in the East, in Libya, in Egypt, in Spain,
in Germany, in Gaul ; and yet the apostles did not write the
gospels or their epistles in the languages of those people to which
they preached, but only in Hebrew or Greek. This argument is
borrowed by Bellarmine from Sanders, de visibil. Monarch.
Lib. vir.
I answer, in the first place : the church could for some time do
without vernacular versions, just as for some time it could do
without the scriptures of the new Testament ; for everything was
not immediately committed to writing. Meanwhile, however, the
principal heads of the doctrine of the gospel were explained to all,
and set forth in that language which they understood ; and then
all necessary matters were committed to writing.
Secondly, I confess the apostles and evangelists did not write
the gospel in as many various languages as they preached it in, by
word of mouth ; for that would have been an infinite labour : it was
enough that they left this doctrine of the gospel written in one
[ Ovre at (v Tcppaviais i8pv/j.evai KK\r)(riai ovre fv TCUS
ovre fv KeXroIy, ovre Kara ras ai/aroAay, oi/re V AiyuTrrw, ovre eV
p. 52, B.j
XIV.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 217
language, from which it might easily be drawn and derived into all
other tongues.
Thirdly, they wrote in that language which was the most
common, and understood by the greatest number of people, and out
of which the scriptures might with most facility be rendered and
translated into other tongues, that is, in the Greek ; which, although
it was not the mother tongue and native language of all, yet was to
most by no means an unknown tongue. For all those nations, whom
Irengeus enumerates in that book, either spoke or understood Greek.
The Oriental churches were composed of Greeks ; and that the
Egyptians understood Greek, is manifest from their bishops and
doctors, Origen, Alexander, Athanasius, Theophilus, Cyril, who
were Alexandrians, and published all their works in Greek. Epi-
phanius had his see in Cyprus, and delivered his instructions to his
people in Greek. At Jerusalem Cyril and others imparted the
gospel to their flock in Greek, and the Catechetical Discourses of
Cyril written in Greek are still extant. In Gaul, Irenasus himself
wrote his books in Greek; which shews that the Greek language
was not unknown to the Lyonnese and Gauls. In Italy too Greek
was understood, and therefore Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans
in that language : for he would not have written it in Greek, if
those to whom he wrote could not have understood it. And Irena3us,
cited by Eusebius, Lib. v. c. 24, testifies that Anicetus the bishop
of Home gave Poly carp liberty "to administer the eucharist in his
church 2 ;" which he would not have done, if the Romans could not
understand Polycarp who was a Grecian. But, however the case
may have been, there were persons who could readily interpret, and
the scriptures were immediately translated into almost all languages,
into Latin, at least, by many hands, since Augustine, as we have
already heard, writes, that, in his time there were innumerable
Latin versions. And although a knowledge of Greek was not so
common in Africa, yet they had versions of their own, as we learn
[ 2 KCU cv 777 fKK\rj(ria Tra.pexa&gt;pW V AVIKIJTOS rr]V fi&gt;xapi&lt;TTiav ra&gt; IIoAv-
tear evTpoTrrjv drjXovori. H. E. Lib. v. c. 24. (Tom. ii. p. 128. ed.
Heinich. Lipsise, 1828.) Valesius understands these words in the same sense
as Whitaker. But Le Moyne, Prolegom. in Var. S. p. 28, and Heinichen in
loc. contend, that Irenseus only meant to say that Anicetus gave the Eucharist
to Polycarp. However the word Trape^copj/o-e seems in favour of Whitaker s
construction. Lowth compares Constitut. Apostol. n. 58, eVtrpe^ety S avrw
(that is, a foreign bishop visiting another bishop s see) KOI TTJV
218 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
from Tertullian, Cyprian, and Augustine, within 400, or 300, or 200,
years after Christ.
But Bellarmine objects, that Peter wrote to the Jews in Greek,
and that James did the same ; and John, in like manner, his Epistle
to the Parthians, as Augustine tells us 1 , Quaest. Evangel. 1. n. quaest.
39, and Hyginus in Epist. i., and Pope John II. in his Epistle to
Valerius : and yet Greek was the mother tongue, neither of the Jews
nor of the Parthians.
I answer, in the first place, that I cannot see what this is meant
to prove, unless it be that the apostles deliberately wrote to some
persons what they could not possibly understand ; which is a course
very abhorrent from the apostles real purpose.
Secondly, the Jews in their dispersion had learned the Greek
language, which was then the language most commonly used by all
men, sufficiently to understand the epistles which they received
written in Greek from the apostles. And the apostles knew that
those letters would be still more profitable to others than to the
Jews, and therefore wrote them not in the Jewish but in the Greek
language.
Thirdly, I do not think that John wrote his Epistle to the
Parthians. Whence Augustine derived this account, is uncertain 2 .
One might just as well pretend that he wrote to the Indians as to
the Parthians. But suppose he did write to these latter, still the
Parthians do not seem to have been wholly unacquainted with Greek,
since Plutarch, in his life of Crassus, tells us that the slaughtered
Crassus was mocked by the Parthians in Greek verses 3 .
[ x Secundum sententiam hanc etiam illud dictum est a Johanne in Epis-
tola ad Parthos : * Dilectissimi, mine filii Dei sumus, &c. Opp. T. in. p. 2.]
[ 2 " How Augustine and some Latins call this Epistle ad Partlws, we may
explain in the following manner. The Second Epistle of John was called by
the ancients Epistola ad Virgines, and consequently in Greek, Trpbs irapdevovs.
Clemens expresses himself thus in the Adumbrations: Secunda Johannis
Epistola, quce ad Virgines scripta est, simplicissima est Tom. n. Op. Clem.
Alex. p. 10. 11. edit. Venet. We find in Greek MSS. the subscription Trpbs
TrapQovs, in the second Epistle ; whence Whiston s conjecture in the " Com
mentary on the three catholic Epistles of St John," London, 1719, p. 6, that
irdptiovs was an abbreviation of irapdzvovs, is confirmed." Hug. Introd. to
N. T. Waits transl. Vol. n. p. 255. Dr Wait, in a note, gives Srpco^ara as
the proper Greek title of the Adumbrations, but this is a mistake. The
book meant is the YTrorvTreoo-eiy, from which these Latin collections were
made by Cassiodorus.]
[ 3 adopevuv de TU&gt;V efa^tjs a/zoi/3aiW Trpbs rbv
XIV.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 219
But to all objections of this sort one answer is sufficient, that
the apostles chose to use one language for writing, which was the
best known of all, in order that what they wrote might with the
greater facility be understood by all ; which design of theirs is most
plainly repugnant to the theory of the papists. And although all
might not understand that language, yet the apostolic scripture
might with the utmost ease and convenience be translated out of it,
and transmitted to the tongues of other nations and countries. Nor
was it to be expected that the apostles should write to each people
in the mother tongue of every several region.
The third argument is drawn from the use of the universal
church ; and the conclusion is inferred thus : that which the universal
church hath held and observed is right : now, the universal church
hath ever confined itself to these three languages, Hebrew, Greek,
and Latin, in the common and public use of the scriptures ; there
fore no other versions are necessary. He proves the major by the
testimony of Augustine, Epist. 118 1 , where he says that it is a piece of
the wildest insolence to dispute against that which is practised by the
universal church. And the same father, in his fourth book of Baptism
against the Donatists, lays it down, that whatever is practised in the
universal church, if its beginning cannot be assigned, should be be
lieved to descend from apostolic tradition, and to have been always
as it is now. To the same purpose he adduces also the testimony of
Leo from his second discourse De Jejunio Pentecostes. He subjoins
that now, wherever catholics are, use is made only of the Greek
and Latin languages in the public reading of the scriptures, and
that the commencement of this custom cannot be assigned.
I answer, in the first place, that this is not the proper time for
disputing concerning ecclesiastical traditions and customs. We shall,
if the Lord permit, handle that whole question hereafter in its ap
propriate place.
Secondly, we should consider, not so much what hath been done
or observed in the Church, as what ought to have been done and
observed. For it does not follow, if the public use of the Latin
TLS
efj,ov TO yepas.
Plut. Opp. T. i. 565, A. Francof. 1620.
The lines in which Crassus was so barbarously ridiculed were taken from the
Bacchse of Euripides, and Plutarch tells us that both Hyrodes and Artavasdes
were familiar with the Greek literature.]
[! Ep. 54. p. 164. Opp. T. ii. Bassan. 1797.]
220 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
tongue exclusively hath obtained in Italy, Spain, France, Germany,
and the rest of these nations, that therefore such a practice is in
no way open to reprehension ; but what we must look to is, whe
ther these churches have done right in publicly reading the scrip
tures in an unknown tongue. And if the church have forbidden the
scriptures to be read in any tongue but the Latin, we must not
therefore think that the church hath committed no error in such
an inhibition.
Thirdly, that is altogether false which he asserts of this having
been the unbroken custom and tradition of the universal church,
as shall presently appear. Wherefore these opinions of Augustine
and Leo are irrelevant to the present subject, and we seem able
to concede that whatever the universal church hath always held
is apostolic: but nothing which can justly claim that character is
popish.
The whole force of this argument depends upon the proof of the
assumption; for which many things are adduced, which we must
discuss severally. Nor must you think that time is spent in vain
upon these ; since they are necessary for the refutation of our ad
versaries.
Now, first, Augustine is said to affirm, Doctr. Christ. Lib. n.
c. 11, that the scripture was wont to to be read in the church
only in three languages, the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. But, if
you will consult the place itself, you will perceive that nothing of
the kind is said by Augustine. What Augustine says is 1 , that
to persons whose language is the Latin, the knowledge of two
other tongues is needful, namely, of the Hebrew and the Greek :
he subjoins as the reason, " in order that they may be able to recur
to the previous exemplars," that is, the originals. Does it follow
that, because the Latins ought to procure for themselves some
knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek tongues in order that they
may the better understand the sense of scripture, therefore the
scriptures were not customarily read in any but these three lan
guages ? For it is to the Latins that Augustine delivers these pre
cepts : he says expressly, " men of the Latin language, whom we
have now undertaken to instruct." Hence nothing can be concluded
against us, but something may be concluded against them. For, if
[ l Et Latinse quidera linguse homines, quos nunc instruendos suscepimus,
duabus aliis ad scripturarum divinarum cognitionem opus habent, Hebrsea
scilicet et Grseca, ut ad exemplaria prsecedentia recurratur, si quam dubi-
tationem attulerit Latinorum interpretum infinita varietas.]
XIV.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 221
the Latins ought to learn the Hebrew and Greek languages, to
enable them to understand the scriptures aright, and to square
their versions by the rule of the originals; it follows that more
deference should be given to the Hebrew and Greek editions than
to the Latin, and consequently, that the Latin is not, as they would
have it, authentic.
As to the statement which the Jesuit subjoins, that no ancient
author hath mentioned any other version, I am amazed that he
should have brought himself to make such an assertion. For
Jerome, whom they make the author of the Latin Vulgate, trans
lated the scriptures into the Dalmatian, which was his mother
tongue 2 . This is so certain that Hosius, in his book de Sacro Ver-
nacule Legendo, writes thus : " It is undoubted that Jerome
translated the sacred books into Dalmatian 3 ." And in the same
book he praises the Dalmatian language, and declares it to be
very famous. So Alphonsus de Castro, Lib. i. c. 13 ; " We con
fess that the sacred books were formerly translated into the vulgar
tongue 4 :" and he cites Erasmus, who writes that Jerome translated
the scriptures into the Dalmatian language. Harding, Art. in.
sect. 38 5 , writes that the Armenians, Russians, Ethiopians, Dalma
tians and Muscovites read the scriptures in their own vernacular
tongues. Eckius makes the same confession, in his Enchiridion
de Missis Latine Dicendis 6 . Cornelius Agrippa, in his book of the
Vanity of the Sciences (if that author deserve any credit), says
that it was decreed by the council of Nice, that no Christian should
be without a bible in his house 7 . Socrates too testifies, that Ulphi-
lus, a bishop of the Goths, who was present at the council of Nice,
translated the scriptures into the Gothic language, in order that the
people might learn them. His words are, Lib. iv. c. 38 8 : " Having
[ 2 This is now universally allowed to be a mistake. It is exposed by
Hody, Lib. in. pars n. c. 2. 8. p. 362.]
[ 3 Dalmatica lingua sacros libros Hieronymum vertisse constat. Opp.
Col. 1584. T. i. p. 664.]
[ 4 Fatemur . . . olim sacros libros in linguam vulgarem fuisse translates.
Col. 1539. fol. 28. 2.]
[ 5 See Jewel, Controversy with Harding, Vol. I. Parker Soc. edit. p.
334.]
[ 6 I cannot find this admission in c. 34. of the Enchiridion, 1. c. 1534.]
[7 Et Nicena Synodus decretis suis cavit ne quis e numero Christianorum
sacris Bibliorum libris careret. cap. 100. ad fin.]
[ 8 ras Oeias ypcxpas els rrjv TorQutv /iera/3aXo&gt;v, rovs ftapftdpovs
TO. Oeia Xo yia Trapeo-Kevacrcv. p. 206. ed. Vales. Par. 1686.]
222 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
translated the divine scriptures into the Gothic language, he pre
pared the barbarians to learn the oracles of God." And Sixtus
Senensis, Bibliothec. Lib. vin., says that Chrysostom translated
the scriptures into the Armenian language 1 . Jerome, too, in his
Epitaph upon Paula, affirms that the Psalms were chanted by
the Christians of Palestine at Paula s 2 funeral, in the Hebrew,
Greek, Latin and Syriac, tongues; and that not only for three
days, whilst she was a-burying beneath the church, beside the
Lord s cave, but during the whole week. It is manifest, therefore,
that the Psalms were translated into Syriac. Stapleton, however,
in his English book against bishop Jewel, of sacred memory, Art.
in., says that these were extraordinary hymns, and not the Psalms
of David; which figment rests upon no proof, and offends even
other papists : for Jerome plainly speaks of the Psalms, when he
says, " they chanted them out in order." Our Jesuit, therefore,
pronounces the place corrupt ; pretending that some of the books
do not exhibit the word "Hebra30," and that the Syriac is here
used for the Hebrew.
Thus do they turn themselves in every direction to escape that
light. This was the ingenious conjecture of Marianus Victorius,
who hath done noble service in corrupting Jerome. But, in the
first place, Erasmus, who laboured quite as diligently, and far more
faithfully than Victorius, as editor of Jerome, and who had seen as
many copies as he, could discover nothing of the kind in that
place. Furthermore, if the Syriac language here meant the
Hebrew, it ought certainly to have been enumerated in the first
place : for when authors, and especially Jerome, enumerate lan
guages, the Hebrew is usually allowed the first place.
But to proceed. In our own histories we read that the scrip
tures were translated into the British language, by order of king
Athelstan, nine hundred years ago. And John of Trevisa writes,
that our countryman Bede translated the gospel of John into
English, Lib. v. c. 24; and that the Psalms were translated by
order of Alfred, Lib. vi. c. 1. And Bede tells us, Lib. i. c. 1,
that, in his time, the scriptures were read in five British languages.
His words in that passage are as follows : " This island at present,
according to the number of the books wherein the divine law was
[i See Hug. Introd. toN. T. . 86.]
[ 2 Tota ad funus ejus Palsestinarum urbium turba convenit. . . . Hebrseo,
Greece, Latino, Syroque sermone, Psalmi in ordine personabant. Epist.
xxxvi. T. iv. part. n. 687, 8.]
XIV.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 223
written, searches and confesses one and the same knowledge of the
sublimest truth and truest sublimity in the languages of five people,
that is, of the English, the Britons, the Scots, the Picts, and the
Latins ; which by meditation of the scripture hath become common
to all 3 ." It is therefore manifest, that the statement that there are
no vernacular version mentioned by any ancient author is emi
nently and most plainly false.
But the Jesuit goes on to mention particular churches ; and
first he discourses thus concerning the African church. All the
Africans did not understand Latin. But the scriptures were in
Africa read only in Latin. Now, that the Latin was not the vulgar
tongue of all the Carthaginians, we have the testimony of Augustine,
in the beginning of his Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans ; who
affirms that some of the Carthaginians understood both Latin and
Punic, some Punic only, and that almost all the rustics were of this
latter class. Also, Serm. 35. de Verbis Domini, he says that the
Punic language is a-kin to the Hebrew 4 . And Jerome, in the
Preface to his Second book upon the Epistle to the Galatians 5 ,
writes that the language of the Africans is the same as the Phoeni
cian, with only a little alteration.
I answer, in the first place : No one says that the Punic lan
guage was the same as the Latin. The contrary may be seen even
from the Paenulus of Plautus 6 ; nor did any one ever entertain a
doubt upon that subject. However it is quite uncertain whether
there were any Punic version of the scriptures. How will our
adversaries prove that there was none, by the testimony of Augus
tine or of any other writer ? Augustine no where denies it ; and
although no monuments of such a thing be now extant, yet it does
not follow thence that there was no version. For in old times the
scriptures were translated into our own tongue, and yet scarcely any
traces of those versions are now apparent. There were certainly
pious bishops in all those parts of Africa, Numidia, Mauritania, who
cherished a tender solicitude for the salvation of their people. It
[ 3 Hsec insula in praesenti, juxta numerum librorum, quibus lex divina
scripta est, quinque gentium linguis unam eandemque summse veritatis et
verse sublimitatis scientiam scrutatur et confitetur, Anglorum videlicet, Brito-
num, Scotorum, Pictorum et Latinorum, quse meditatione scripturarum omni
bus estfacta communis. Opp. T, i. p. 9. ed. Stevens. Lond. 1841.]
[ 4 Serm. cxiii. 2. Tom. v. col. 568. Opp. Par. 1679. 1700.]
[ 5 Quum et Afri Phcenicum linguam non nulla ex parte mutaverint.
T. iv. 255, 6.]
[ 6 Plauti Famulus. Y. I. &c.]
224 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
seems incredible that there should have been no one found amongst
them to do that for the Carthaginians, which we read that Jerome
did for the Dalmatians, translate the scriptures into the language
of the people.
Secondly, in the more frequented and civilized places, and con
siderable cities, the Africans understood Latin, and could speak it ;
so that we are not to wonder that the scriptures were read in Latin
at Carthage, as appears from Cyprian ; at Milevi, as we find from
Optatus ; at Hippo, as appears from Augustine. For these fathers
read and expounded the scriptures in Latin in their churches : nor
would they have used the Latin tongue in their homilies and
harangues, if the people could not have understood that language.
Augustine upon Psalm xviii. hath these words : " Most dearly be
loved, that which we have sung with harmonious voice, we ought
also to know and hold in an unclouded breast 1 . * In his book de
Catechiz. Rudibus, cap. 9 2 , he warns the people not to ridicule their
pastors, if they shall happen to express themselves ungrammatically
in their prayers and sermons. Whence it is plain that some of the
common people were often better skilled in Latin than the ministers
themselves. In his Retractations, Lib. i. c. 20, he says that he had
composed a certain Psalm in Latin letters against the Donatists,
with the express object that it should reach the knowledge of the
very lowest of the people, the unskilful and illiterate 3 . In his
Serin. 24, deVerbis Apost. he speaks thus: "The Punic proverb is
well known, which I will tell you in Latin, because all of you do not
understand Punic 4 ." Therefore the common people understood Latin
better than Punic. Upon Psalm 1.: "We all know," says he, "that
in Latin one cannot say sanguines, or sanguina, but sanguinem*"
And when he addressed the people, he was much more careful to be
intelligible, than to express himself with purity. So on Psalm cxx viii. 6 :
[! Carissirni, quod consona voce cantavimus, sereno etiam corde nosse et
tenere [ac videre] debemus. T. iv. 81, 2.J
[2 13. Tom. vi. col. 272,]
[ 3 Tom. i. col. 31. Volens etiam causam Donatistarum ad ipsius humil-
limi vulgi et omnino imperitorum atque idiotarum notitiam pervenire ....
psalmum, qui eis cantaretur, per Latinas literas feci.]
[4 Proverbium notum est Punicum: quod quidem Latine vobis dicam,
quia Punice non omnes nostis. T. v. 804. (Serai, clxvii. 4.)]
[5 Omnes novimus Latine non dici sanguines nee sanguina, sed sanguinem.
T. iv. 472.]
[ 6 Ego dicam ossum : sic enim potius loquamur : melius est ut nos repre-
liendant grammatici, quam non intelligant populi. T. iv. col. 1545.]
XIV.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 225
" I will say ossum : for so we should rather speak. It is better
that the grammarians should blame, than that the people should
not understand us." And upon John, Tract. 7, " Lend me your
kind attention. It is dolus, not dolor. I mention this because
many brethren, who are not very skilful in the Latin tongue, are in
the habit of using such phrases as, Dolus ilium torquet, when they
mean what is denoted by Dolor**." And Augustine, Confess. Lib. i.
c. 14, says that he learned the Latin language, " amidst the
caresses of the nursery, the jokes of those that laughed, and the
smiles of those that played with him 8 ." Now Augustine was born
and bred at Tagasta, in Africa, as appears from the Confessions,
Lib. iv. c. 7. From these circumstances it is clear that the people
of Africa, especially in the cities and more populous places, not only
understood Latin, but could speak it too, although perhaps not
always with that purity which an exact Latinity would have re
quired.
The Jesuit goes on to enumerate the Spanish, English, French,
German, and Italian churches ; with respect to which it is not
necessary that I should answer him upon each case severally. I
am aware that, in these later times, the people were plunged in the
densest darkness, and that even in the centre of Italy and Rome
every thing was read in a foreign language. But before this igno
rance and antichristian tyranny, in the older and purer times of
the church, I affirm that the scriptures were never, in any country,
read publicly to the people in any other language but that which
the people understood. Our adversary will never be able to prove
the contrary. The Latin tongue certainly of old prevailed widely
in the western part of the world, so that the scriptures may have
been read in Latin in those countries which Bellarmine mentions,
and yet have been understood by the people. Augustine tells us,
in his City of God, Lib. xix. c. 7, " Care was taken that the im
perial city should impose not only her yoke, but her language also,
upon the vanquished nations 9 ." Plutarch, in his Platonic Questions 10 ,
[ 7 Intendat caritas vestra ; dolus, non dolor est. Hoc propterea dico quia
multi fratres imperitiores Latinitatis loquuntur sic ut dicant, Dolus ilium tor
quet, pro eo quod est Dolor. T. in. P. n. 349.]
[ 8 Inter blandimenta nutricum, et joca arridentium, et Isetitias alluden-
tium.]
[ 9 Data opera est ut civitas imperiosa non solum jugum, verum etiam
linguam suam, domitis gentibus imponeret.]
[ 10 coy doKfl fioi TTfpi Pco/zaiW Xe-yeii/, coi&gt; /uei&gt; Xoyco vvv 6/xov TL rravres av-
pvvT 01 P- 1010. c. T. n. Opp. Francofurt. 1620.]
[WHITAKER.]
226 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
affirms that almost all men use the Latin language. And Strabo
says this expressly of the Gauls and Spaniards. Besides, there
may have been versions of the scriptures in those churches, which
are unknown, and unheard of, by us. It is quite certain that the
reading of the scriptures was everywhere understood in those
churches. Isidore, in his book De Offic. Eccles. c. 10, writes thus
of the Spanish and all other churches : " It behoves that when the
Psalms are sung, all should sing ; and when the prayers are said,
they should be said by all ; and that when the lesson is read, silence
should be kept that it may be heard equally by all 1 ." Where the
language is a strange one, men can neither sing together, nor pray
together, nor hear anything together : for not to understand what
another reads or says, comes to the same thing as not to hear it.
It is therefore sufficiently evident from Isidore, that in Spain the
Latin language was known to those who used it in the reading of
the scriptures. And this is likewise manifest of Gaul. For Sulpi-
tius Severus, in his Life of Martin, informs us, that, when the
people had assembled to choose Martin bishop, upon the reader not
appearing, one of the by-standers seized the book, and read the
eighth Psalm ; at the reading of which a general shout was raised
by the people, and the opposite party were reduced to silence 2 .
From this testimony we collect that the people understood very well
what was read to them ; for otherwise no occasion would have been
afforded them of raising this acclamation. Whence it follows, either
that this people were not unacquainted with the Latin tongue, or
that there was then extant some vernacular version of the scripture.
Now then we have sufficiently answered this argument ; but there
will be something to be answered again in the other part upon this
subject.
The fourth argument is drawn from the reason of the thing
itself. It is requisite that the public use of scripture should be in
some language most common to all men, for the sake of preserving
the unity of the church, But at present there is no language
more common than the Latin. He proves the major by the con
sideration that otherwise the communion between churches would be
destroyed, and it would be impossible that general councils should
be celebrated ; for all the fathers have not the gift of tongues.
[ l Oportet ut quando psallitur, ab omnibus psallatur : et cum oratur, ut
oretur ab omnibus ; quando lectio legitur, ut facto silentio seque audiatur a
cunctis. Isid. Opp. Col. Agripp. 1617, p. 393.]
[2 Sulpitii Severi. Opp. Amstel. 1665, p. 452.]
XIV.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 227
I answer : All the parts of this argument are weak. For, in
the first place, it is false that no language is more common than
the Latin, even in the West. In truth there is hardly any less
common. For at the present day none understand Latin, but those
who have learned it from a master. Formerly, indeed, this was
the native and common language of many people ; but now, in the
greatest multitude that can be collected, how few will you find that
are acquainted with Latin !
Secondly, if, as Bellarmine himself confesses, the very reason
why the apostles at first wrote almost everything in Greek, was
because that language was the most common of all, and the
scriptures were afterwards translated into Latin, because afterwards
the Latin became more common ; it follows that now also the
scriptures should be rendered into other languages which are now
more common than either Latin or Greek. Such are now the
Dalmatian, Italian, French, German, Polish. For these are the
mother-tongues of great nations ; whereas the Latin is the mother-
tongue of no nation whatever. At this day the Latin is a stranger
in Latium itself, is the vernacular language of no people, but
peculiar to learned men and those who have attended the lessons
of some master in the schools.
Thirdly, his pretence that the inter-communion of churches
would be destroyed, and the celebration of general councils ren
dered impossible, unless the scriptures were everywhere read in
some one most common language, is absurd and repugnant to all
reason and experience. For formerly, when the scriptures were
read in Hebrew by the Hebrews, in Greek by the Grecians, and
in Latin by the Latins, there was nevertheless the greatest friend
ship amongst Christians and the closest union in the church, nor
was there any impediment to the holding of general councils. In
the Nicene council there were Greek and Latin fathers, who all,
though they did not use one and the same language, yet defended
the same faith with the most zealous unanimity. If it be a thing
so conducive to the conservation of the church s unity, that the
scriptures should everywhere be read in the same language, why
were not measures taken to insure it from the beginning ? Or why
ought the Latin language to be deemed fitter for such a purpose than
any other ? These dreams are only meet subjects for laughter ;
and therefore this argument hath been omitted by the editor of the
epitome.
The fifth argument. If there be no cause why the scriptures
152
228 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
should be translated vernacularly, then they ought not to be trans
lated. But there is no cause why they should be translated ;
which is thus proved. If they are translated in order that the
people may understand them, this is no good cause, since the
people cannot understand them even when they are translated.
For the people would not understand the prophets and Psalms,
and other pieces which are read in the churches, even if they
were read in the vernacular language. For these things even the
learned do not understand, unless they read and hear expositors.
I answer, in the first place, by confessing that all things are
not immediately understood upon the reading even by the learned,
especially in the prophets and the Psalms. For to enable us to
understand the scriptures, there is need not only of reading, but
of study, meditation and prayer. But if, for this reason, the
people ought not to read the scriptures in their own tongue, then
even the learned ought not to be permitted to read them. How
ever there are many things which can be understood, though not
all : and assuredly, all things which are necessary to salvation are
plainly delivered in scripture, so as that they can be easily under
stood by any one if he will. And men would know more than
they do, if they would read and hear the scriptures with that
attention which they ought to bestow. For the reason why most
men understand so little, and gain such slender advantage from the
reading of the scriptures, is to be found in their own negligence,
because they neither give a religious attention to the perusal of
them, nor approach it with the proper dispositions.
Secondly, although the whole sense be not immediately per
ceived, yet the words are understood when they are recited in the
mother-tongue ; and this greatly conduces towards gaining a
knowledge of the sense. The eunuch, Acts viii., was reading the
prophet Isaiah, which yet he did not thoroughly understand.
Nevertheless, he was to be praised for reading it, and hath de
servedly been praised by many of the fathers. He understood the
words indeed, but knew not that the prophet spoke of Christ, and
was ignorant of the true sense. But these men do not allow the
people to understand even so much as the words. However, as
that reading of the scripture was useful to the eunuch, so it will be
useful to the people to be diligent in reading the scriptures, so as
that, from understanding the words, they may come to understand
the sense of the whole. For the first step is to know the words,
the second to perceive the drift of the discourse. But the papists
XIV.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 229
arc so far from wishing the people to comprehend the sense of
scripture, that they prevent them from even reading the words.
The sixth argument. It is dangerous for the people to read
the scriptures,; since they would not derive benefit from the
scriptures, but injury. All heresies have sprung from misunder
standing of scripture, as Hilary observes at the end of his book
de synodis 1 ; and Luther calls the scriptures the book of heretics:
and this is further proved by experience. Hence have sprung the
heresies of the Anthropomorphites, the Adamites 2 , and of David
George 3 , who understood no language but his mother-tongue. If
the people were to hear the Song of songs read, the adultery of
David, the incest of Tamar, the story of Leah and Rachel, the
falsehoods of Judith, they would either despise the holy patriarchs,
or argue that similar things were lawful to themselves, or believe
these to be false. Bellarmine further subjoins, that he heard from
a credible witness, that once when in England the twenty-fifth
chapter of Ecclesiasticus was being read in the vulgar tongue,
wherein many things are spoken of the wickedness of women, a
certain woman rose up and exclaimed: "Is this the word of God?
nay, rather it is the word of the devil." And the Rhemists, in
their note upon 1 Cor. xiv,, say that the translation of holy offices
often breeds manifold perils and contempt in the vulgar sort,
leading them to suppose that God is the author of sin, when they
read, " Lead us not into temptation :" although they seem here to
have forgotten what they have observed elsewhere, that the Lord s
prayer should be allowed in the vernacular language. The censors
of Cologne, too, in their book against Monhemius, p. 20, tell us,
* No heresy was ever found which did not make use of scripture ;
[ The reference meant is most probably ad Constant. August, n. 9. Sed
memento tamen neminem hsereticorum esse qui se mine 11011 secundum
scripturas prsedicare ea, quibus blasphemat, mentiatur .... omnes scrip-
turas sine scripturse sensu loquuntur. Col- 1230. Hilarii Opp, Paris. 1693.]
[ 2 There was an ancient sect of Adamites, said by Theodoret (Hrcr. Fab.
p. 197) to have been founded by Prodicus, (whose tenets are described by
Clemens Alex. Strom, i. p. 304. B. and 3. pp. 438, 439,) and of which the
fullest account is given by Epiphanius, (Heeres. 52,) but only upon hearsay,
(p. 458, c.) But the persons meant by Bellarmine were probably the Picards,
exterminated by Zisca in the 15th century, and the Anabaptists of Amster
dam in the 16th. See Bayle s Diet. Art. PICARD, and Beausobre s Disserta
tion at the end of L Enfant s History of the Hussites, Amsterd. 1731.]
[ 3 Founder of the Davidists. He died 155G. See Mosheim, Cent, 16.
sect. 3. part. n. c. 3. 24.]
230 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
yea, to speak still more boldly, which did not take its occasion
from scripture 1 ."
I answer, in the first place : All these suggestions are the product
of human ingenuity, and impeach the divine wisdom. For if the
reading of these things were so dangerous, why did the Lord will
that they should be written, and that in the language which the
whole church understood, and afterwards should be translated into
the Greek and Latin tongues, which latter our adversary himself
affirms to be the most common of all ? These things ought rather to
have been buried than consigned to writing, if they were so fraught
with danger to piety and good morals.
Secondly, there is nothing which the reading of these histories
is less fitted to produce than either contempt for the saints, or any
kind of petulance and impiety. For though in those histories the
adultery of David is narrated, yet so is also, in the same narratives,
the penitence of David and his punishment described; the knowledge
whereof is useful to the church and all the faithful. For, in the
first place, hence we learn that no one can sin with impunity ; but
that every one, if he sin, must undergo the penalty of sin, either in
the shape of chastisement, as David, or in that of vengeance, as others.
We learn farther, that one must not despair though he may have
sinned ; but that, however heinous the sin into which he may have
fallen, there is hope that God will be merciful for Christ s sake, if
the sinner heartily repent. Lastly, that those holy and excellent
men were not saved by their own virtues, but by the merits of Christ,
and consequently that we ought not to think of them more mag
nificently than is proper ; as indeed there is less danger of our
attributing too little to them than too much : on which account the
Holy Spirit did not choose to pass in silence these actions, which
were not small delinquencies, but most enormous crimes.
Thirdly, no scandal springs truly and legitimately from scripture.
In Rom. xv. 4, the apostle declares why the scriptures were pub
lished, and what end they regard ; not to lead men into false opinions,
but "they are written for our learning, that we through patience
and comfort of the scriptures might have hope." In Psalm cxix. 9,
David asks, "Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way?"
He answers, not by avoiding or remaining ignorant of the scriptures,
but, "by taking heed to them." Even young men, therefore, whose
age is especially prone to lust, may nevertheless be usefully engaged
[ l Nulla unquam reperta est hseresis, quse non scripturis fuerit usa: imo
ut audentius dicamus, qusc non ex scripturis occasionem acceperit. Colon. 1582.]
XIV.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 231
in the study of the scriptures. In Psalm xii. 7, he says that "the
words of the Lord" are "pure words:" but these men are afraid,
lest, as the apostle, 1 Cor. xv. 33, reminds us that good manners are
corrupted hy evil communication, so men should be made worse
and more estranged from piety by the perusal of the scriptures.
Meanwhile, they who remove the scriptures from the eyes of men,
as pestilent to all pious behaviour, permit all young men to read
Proper tius, Martial, Ovid, Plautus, Terence, and forbid not the most
shameful comedies and the foulest shews. What can be conceived
more impious and antichristian than such conduct ?
Fourthly, as to his assertion that heresies spring from the scrip
ture not being understood, I confess its truth. But, as all heresies
are wont to spring from not understanding or ill understanding
scripture, so all heresies are refuted by the scriptures well and
fittingly understood and expounded. Hence the Anthropomorphites,
hence the Adamites, hence all the other heretics are convicted of
error. Now it is much better that the scriptures should be read,
and that, from the scriptures read and understood, heresies should
be condemned and overthrown, than that they should not be read
at all ; and that by such means the rise of heresies should be pre
vented. For doubtless many more persons perish through ignorance
of scripture, than through heresy; and it is from ignorance of
scripture, and not from the reading of it, that heresies themselves
arise.
Fifthly, whether Luther ever really said that "scripture is the
book of the heretics," is neither very certain nor very important.
Indeed they are wont to abuse the scriptures, but still may always
be convicted and refuted by the same.
Sixthly, the story which he subjoins, as heard from some
Englishman, about a certain woman, who, when that chapter of
Ecclesiasticus 2 was read in England, rose up in a rage and spoke
with little modesty of that scripture, I leave entirely on the credit
of the good man from whom Bellarmine heard it. But what if a
few persons sometimes abuse the scriptures ; does it therefore follow
that the scriptures are to be wholly taken away, and never read
to the people? In this way of reasoning, even the learned
should never read the scriptures, since many even very learned
men abuse the scriptures, as is the case with almost all heretics.
[ 2 It is to be observed that, in our present Calendar, Ecclus. xxv., which is
the evening lesson for November 6, is ordered to be read only to ver. 13. No
such rule however was made in King Edward s Prayer-book.]
232 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [oil.
Besides, if the abuse of any thing were sufficient to set aside its use,
we should abstain from food and from drink, and even forego the
use of clothes, because many people abuse these things to gluttony,
drunkenness and pride. This then is the most noted of all fallacies,
putting that which is not the cause for the cause, and arguing from
accidental circumstances.
In the seventh place, the Jesuit reasons thus : if the scrip
tures should be read by the people in the vulgar tongue, then
new versions should be made in every age, because languages are
changed every age ; which he proves from Horace s Art of Poetry l
and from experience. But this would be impossible, because there
would be a lack of persons fit to make the versions ; and, if it
were possible, it would be absurd that the versions should be so
often changed. Therefore the scriptures ought not to be read in
the vernacular tongue.
I answer, every part of this argument is ridiculous. For, in
the first place, it is false that languages change every age ; since
the primary tongues, the Hebrew, Greek and Latin, have not
undergone such frequent alterations. Secondly, there is never in
Christian churches a lack of some sufficient interpreters, able to
translate the scriptures and render their genuine meaning in the
vulgar tongue. Thirdly, no inconvenience will follow if inter
pretations or versions of scripture, when they have become obsolete
and ceased to be easily intelligible, be afterwards changed and
corrected. I would assuredly have passed over this argument
entirely, if I had not determined not to conceal or dissemble any
arguments of our opponents.
The Jesuit s eighth argument is taken from the authority of
the fathers. He brings forward the testimonies of two illustrious
fathers, to whom we are bound to render the highest deference on
account of their consummate and manifold erudition, Basil and
Jerome. Basil then, as Theodoret relates, Hist. Lib. iv. cap. 19,
when the prefect of the imperial kitchen was prating with into
lerable impudence and ignorance concerning the dogmas of theo
logy, answered him thus : " It is your business to mind your
sauces, not to cook the divine oracles 2 ."
t 1 Ut silvse foliis pronos mutantur in annos,
Prima cadunt : ita verborum vetus intent setas
Et juvenum ritu florent modo riata, vigentque. v. 60.]
[ 2 Traprjv Se TIS ArjjjLoo-Oevijs KoXovpcvos T&lt;OV /3ao-iAiKa&gt;y 7rpo[j.7)6ovpfvos o^cov,
os T6) didder KaXop rrjs oiKovfJievrjs fTTip.fp^a.jj.fVOs e /3ap/3aptcrei , 6 Be 6elos Ba&lt;ri-
XIV.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 233
I answer, This prefect of the imperial kitchen was by name
Demosthenes, and troubled the holy father with exceeding in
solence and ignorance ; for, being himself a stupid barbarian, he
would yet, as Theodoret tells us, instruct the doctor of the whole
world, TOV i&lt;!&gt;d(jKa\ov Trjs oLKou/aevri^ 9 for so Basil was esteemed.
The courtier imagined, it seems, that he, a person at once wholly
unlearned and very fooliih, could maintain a disputation upon the
scriptures with Basil, a man of profound learning, most expert in
scriptures, and a bishop of the church. This was the reason why
Basil answered him so sharply, 2oi/ ecrrt rds 1 TWV ^W/LLWV KapvKeias
(ftpovTifyiv. And, indeed, those who are like this man ought to
be treated in like manner, and rebuked with much severity : but
what is this to the purpose ? It is one thing to read the scriptures,
and another thing to suppose ourselves to understand them when
we do not. Basil did riot blame the cook for having read the
scriptures, but for having the conceit that he had obtained such
distinguished knowledge as to be able to dispute with him con
cerning the scriptures, when he did not understand them. This
arrogance of his Basil wished to crush, and to shut his impudent
mouth with that answer, not to prevent him from reading the
scriptures. All should be expected, when they read the scriptures,
to read them with judgment, lest they be like this foolish De
mosthenes ; who, because he was altogether illiterate and possessed
with heretical prejudices, seemed to Basil a person unworthy to
discourse upon religious subjects. For so Basil addresses him :
" Thou canst not hear the divine doctrines, for thine ears are
stuffed against them."
I come now to the testimony of Jerome cited by the Jesuit,
which is contained in the epistle to Paulinus, and runs thus :
" Physicians undertake the proper business of physicians, and
workmen handle workmen s tools. Skill in the scriptures is the
only art which all claim for themselves. Learned and unlearned,
we all promiscuously write poems. This the garrulous crone, this
the doting old man, this the wordy sophist, this all indiscriminately
seize on, tear, teach before they learn. Some with importance on
their brows, and weighing their pompous words, philosophize upon
the sacred books amongst their female disciples. Others (0
&lt;pr], KOL
eKclvos Svo-xepdvas yTretXrja-f, 2oi/ ecrrtv, (&lt;pi] 6 (j-eyas BacriXaos, rfjs T&lt;av
KapvKfias (f&gt;povrietv doypaToiv yap 6eia&gt;v eVcueii/ ov dvvao-ai,
ras aKods. p. 174, c. D. ed. Vales. Paris. 1673.]
234 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
shame !) learn from women what they are to teach to men ; and,
as if this were not enough, by a certain facility, or rather au
dacity, of talk discourse to others what they do not understand
themselves 1 ." These are the words of Jerome : to which I answer,
that Jerome s complaint is just; since those persons should not treat
of scripture, who are ignorant and unskilful in the subject. But
here it is to be observed, that Jerome does not blame the men and
women of whom he speaks for reading the scriptures, but because,
as soon as ever they had the slightest taste of scriptural knowledge,
they supposed immediately that they understood every thing, that
they could teach others, and could interpret the scriptures to others,
when they did not understand them themselves ; and because they
rushed precipitately into the scriptures without that modesty which
is to be preserved in the perusal of them. He blames, therefore,
their impudence, unskilfulness, insolence and arrogance, but does
not prevent them from reading the scriptures; yea, rather, he would
have all to read the scriptures, provided they read with modesty
and reverence.
These are the arguments of the Jesuit ; to which, I hope, we
have returned an answer abundantly sufficient. There are others
who handle this question, as Harding, Art. 15. Sect. 3, who dis
tributes this whole controversy under five heads. He proves that
a vernacular translation of the scriptures is, first, unnecessary ;
secondly, not fitting ; thirdly, not useful ; fourthly, unsafe ; fifthly,
heretical. But it is not worth while to answer his arguments
also, and obviate the objections which he brings against vernacular
versions of the bible ; as well because they are absolutely the
same with those alleged by the Jesuit, as also because they have
been already most copiously and learnedly confuted by that dis
tinguished man, Doctor John Jewel, bishop of Sarum, whom they
may read who desire to see more upon this matter.
t 1 Quod medicorum est promittunt medici, tractant fabrilia jfabri. Sola
scripturarum ars est quam sibi omnes passim vindicant. Scribimus indocti
doctique poemata passim. Hanc garrula anus, lianc delirus senex, hanc
sophista verbosus, hanc universi prsesumunt, lacerant, decent antequam dis-
cant. Alii adducto supercilio, grandia verba trutinantes, inter mulierculas de
sacris literis philosophantur. Alii discunt (proh pudor !) a feminis quod viros
doccant i et ne parura hoc sit, quadara facilitate verborum, imo audacia, edis-
serunt aliis quod ipsi non intelligunt. T. iv. p. 571.]
XV.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 235
CHAPTER XV.
OUR REASONS FOR VERNACULAR VERSIONS OF THE SCRIPTURES.
I COME now to the defence of our own side, in which I have to
prove that the scriptures are to be set forth before all Christians in
their vernacular tongues, so as that every individual may be enabled
to read them.
Now my first argument shall be to this effect : that which is
by God prescribed to all, all should do. But God hath commanded
all to read the scriptures : therefore all are bound to read the
scriptures. There can be no controversy about the major, unless
some one doubt whether we are bound to obey God. The as
sumption however may perhaps be questioned. We must inquire,
therefore, whether God hath prescribed this to all. And this may
very easily be made to appear ; for God hath chosen that his will
should be written, that his word should be committed to writing,
that his scriptures should be commended to men, and that in a
language known not only to the learned, but to the vulgar also.
What could have been his object in this, if it were not that all
people should read the scriptures, and recognise the will and word
of God ? In Deut. xxxi. 11, 12, there is an express command of
God concerning the reading of the scriptures before the whole
people : " Thou shalt read the words of this law in the presence of
all Israel, in their hearing, and to all the people collected together."
And lest any of the people should peradventure suppose himself
exempted by some special privilege, and discharged from the
obligation of this divine command, Moses makes use of a distributive
enumeration, naming expressly the women, the children, and the
strangers, and subjoining even their posterity. But why does God
will his law to be read before the whole people ? The reason is
added, " that they may hear, and may learn, and fear Jehovah and
observe his precepts." Now this is of perpetual obligation : therefore
the reading of the scripture is always necessary. For if the end
and proximate cause of any law be perpetual, the law itself is to be
esteemed perpetual. But the reasons on account of which God
willed the scriptures to be read are perpetual. Therefore he wills
them to be read to the people perpetually throughout all ages.
In Deut. xvii. 19, 20, it is particularly enjoined upon the king
that he should read the scriptures : and the same reasons are added
as were given before, and also some peculiar to the king ; as that,
236 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
lest his soul should be lifted up with pride, and he should despise
his brethren, and depart from this precept, " to the right hand or to
the left." In Deut. vi. 6, 7, 8, 9, this command is proposed to all
Israel, and even urged vehemently upon them, that the words of
the divine law should be graven upon their hearts ; that they
should tell them to their sons ; that they should speak of them
when they sat at home and when they walked by the way, when
they lay down and when they rose up ; that they should have
them, as it were, bound upon their hands, and kept ever before
their eyes ; finally, that they should be inscribed upon the posts of
their houses and upon their doors. From all which we understand
that God would have his law most familiarly known to his people.
In Jer. xxxvi. 6, 7, the prophet commands Baruch to read the
book which he had written from Jeremiah s dictation, before the whole
people ; and the reason is subjoined, " if peradventure they may
fall down, and make entreaty before Jehovah, and return each man
from his evil way." And in the new Testament Christ, John v.
39, bids men epevvqv rds ypa(pa&lt;$, " search the scriptures." In
which place he addresses not only the persons of learning and
erudition, that is, the Scribes and Pharisees, but also the unlearned
people and the illiterate vulgar : for not the learned alone, but
the unlearned also, seek and desire eternal life ; yea, salvation and
the kingdom of God pertains to the latter equally with the former
class. Chrysostom observes upon that place, Horn. 40, that Christ
exhorts the Jews in that passage not merely to a bare and simple
reading of the scriptures, but sets them upon a very diligent
investigation, since he bids them not to read, but to search the
scriptures. John xx. 31, the Evangelist says : " These things are
written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of
God ; and that believing ye may have life through his name."
Now all desire life and salvation ; all too desire faith, or, at least,
ought to desire it. Thus then we reason from this passage : without
faith there is no life : without the scriptures there is no faith : the
scriptures therefore should be set forth before all men. Rom. xv.
14, " Whatsoever things were written were written for our learn
ing," says Paul. The Lord therefore willed us to be learned, and
this is saving knowledge. He subjoins, " that we, through patience
and comfort of the scriptures, might have hope." Those therefore
who are without the scriptures are without patience, without
comfort, without hope ; for all these things are produced by the
scriptures.
XV.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 237
Our second argument stands thus : The people should not be
deprived of those arms by which they are to be protected against
Satan. Now the scriptures are such arms : therefore the scrip
tures should not be taken away from the people; for taken away
they are, if the people be prevented from reading them. The
major is self evident. The assumption is proved by the example
of Christ himself, Matt. iv. For when Christ had to deal with
Satan, and was engaged in a close encounter with him, he repressed
and refuted him with no other arms than the scriptures. Thrice
he answered him with, " It is written," and with the third reply
he routed him. If Christ defended himself against Satan with the
scriptures, how much more needful are the scriptures to us against
the same enemy ! And it was for this end that Christ used the
weapons of scripture against Satan, that he might afford us an
example ; for he could have repelled Satan with a single word.
We therefore ought to resist Satan in the same manner. It is
folly to suppose that Satan can be driven away by bare ceremonies,
exorcisms, gesticulations, and outward fopperies. We must fight
with arguments drawn from scripture, and the examples of the
holy fathers : the scriptures are the only arms which can prevail,
or ought to be used against him. Those, therefore, who take the
holy scriptures away from the people, leave them exposed naked
to Satan, and hurl them into most certain destruction. For with
out the protection of scripture the people must necessarily fall
under all temptations. The apostle Paul, Eph. vi. 16, says that
the shield, Qvpeov, wherewith the fiery darts of Satan are to be
quenched, is TTICTTIS, faith. Now faith, as the same apostle testi
fies, Rom. x, 17, is " begotten by hearing, and hearing by the
word of God." And, as we resist Satan by faith, which is produced
by the scriptures, so also is he to be attacked by scripture. For in
the same place that /md^aipa Tryej^uaros, the spiritual sword,
is said to be the word of God. From the scriptures, therefore, we
must take both what are called offensive and defensive arms
against Satan, with which furnished upon all sides, we shall un
doubtedly obtain a happy victory. All the other arms there
described depend upon faith acquired from the scriptures. Thus
then we conclude this place and our second argument. All who
have to contend with Satan ought to read the scriptures, that
they may use those arms which are supplied by the scriptures
expertly and skilfully against that deadly and most formidable foe.
Now Satan wages war against all men without exception. All there-
238 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
fore ought to read the scriptures ; and consequently the scriptures
ought to be set forth for all people in their own vernacular languages.
My third argument I form thus : The scriptures are to be
read publicly in such a manner as that the people may be able to
derive some advantage from them. But they cannot be useful to
the people in an unknown tongue : therefore they should be
translated into a language known to the people. The major is
indubitable ; and, for the minor, it is proved by Paul, 1 Cor. xiv.
through almost the whole of which chapter he handles this ques
tion : " If I shall come to you," says he, v. 6, " speaking with
tongues, what shall I profit you ?" T I y/xa? ^(peXtjcra) ; as if he
had said, " certainly nothing." And, verse 7, he proves by the
examples of things without life, as pipe and harp, " which," says
he, " unless they give a distinction (SiaaToXyv) in their tones, how
shall it be known what is piped or harped?" In like manner it
behoves our speech to be CUO-T^UO?, or significant. So he concludes,
verse 19, that he would rather speak five words in the church &a
yoos, with his understanding, so as to instruct others, than " ten
thousand words in an unknown tongue," ev yXwcrari. Chrysostom,
in his 35th homily upon the first epistle to the Corinthians, exclaims,
" What utility can there be in a speech not understood ?" TTWS yap
CLTTO (pwvijs $s ov criWre 1 ; and in the same homily: "He who
speaks with tongues edifies himself: yet he cannot do even so much
as this, unless he understand what he says." So that, according
to Chrysostom, the reading of what one does not understand, can
not profit either others or even the reader himself : yet the popish
priests used to read every thing in Latin, although very many of
them were mere illiterate persons. But we shall speak more at
large upon this subject in the next part.
The fourth argument, The Lord commands and requires
that the people should be instructed, full of wisdom and knowledge,
and perfectly acquainted with the mysteries of salvation. He often
complains of the ignorance of the people, and commands them to
be exercised in his word, that they may thence acquire wisdom and
understanding. Therefore the people ought to read the scriptures,
since without the reading of the scriptures they cannot acquire
such knowledge. Now they cannot read them, unless they be
translated : therefore the scriptures ought to be translated.
The antecedent is easily proved by many testimonies of scrip
ture. Deut. iv. 6, God wills his people Israel to be so well
[ l T, x. p. 323.]
XV.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 239
instructed, so endued with wisdom and knowledge of his law, that
foreign nations, when they hear of it, may wonder amd exclaim,
" Lo a people wise and understanding, a great nation ! " Coloss. iii.
16, the apostle desires that the word of Christ may evotKelv, dwell
abundantly, or copiously, TrXova-iws, in the Colossians. And, in the
same epistle, i. 9, he wishes that they may be filled " with the
knowledge of his will, in all wisdom and spiritual understanding."
And chap. ii. 2, he requires in them " a full assurance of under
standing to the acknowledgment of the mystery of God." And, 2
Cor. viii. 7, he says that the Corinthians Trepicrcreveiv, are abun
dantly filled " with faith, and utterance, and knowledge." And
Numb. ii. 29, Moses wishes that all the people were prophets.
And, 1 Cor. xiv. 5, Paul wishes that all might speak with tongues,
but rather that they should prophesy. Philip, i. 9, the same
apostle prays that the love of the Philippians may abound more
and more, " in knowledge and in all judgment." And, 2 Pet. i. 5,
Peter admonishes those to whom he writes that they should add vir
tue to faith, and to virtue and sanctity of life T-^V yviocriv, know
ledge. From these passages we perceive that wisdom, prudence,
knowledge and understanding are required in the people of God ;
and therefore those who retain them in a stupid and gross igno
rance of the scripture inflict a grievous injury upon the people.
Nay, the fathers also confess, that a knowledge of, and
acquaintance with, the scriptures is necessary for all Christians.
Jerome in his commentary upon the Colossians, iii. 16, says:
" Hence we see that the laity ought to have not only a suffi
cient, but an abundant knowledge of the scriptures, and also to
instruct each other 2 ." Chrysostom, in his ninth homily upon the
Colossians, writing upon the same passage, remarks that the
apostle requires the people to know the word of God, not simply,
but in great abundance, ov^ a7rXo&gt;9, aXXa //era TroXXj/s rfjs
Trepioua-ias ; and adds : " Attend, all ye that are secular (KO&IHIKOI),
and have wives and families depending upon you, how he (the
apostle) specially commands you to read the scripture; and not
merely to read it in a perfunctory manner, but with great dili
gence," a XXct /uerd TroXX^s CTTTOV^. Chrysostom observes in
that same place, that the apostle does not say, let the word of God
be in you; but, let it dwell in you; and that, 7rXoy&lt;rws, richly 3 .
[ 2 Hinc perspicimus non tantum sufficienter, sed etiam abundantur debere
lacios scripturarum cognitionem habcre, et se invicem docere. T. XL 1029.
But this Commentary is not Jerome s.]
[ 3 T. XL p. 391.]
240 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [dl.
CEcumenius too observes upon the same passage, that the doctrine
of Christ should dwell in us ev iroXXr, $a\f/i\eia, most abundantly.
Now, how are we to obtain so full a knowledge of it as this im
plies? CEcumenius informs us by subjoining, Sid riys TU&gt;V ypa(pa&gt;v
epevvrjs, by searching the scriptures. So Thomas Aquinas in his
third lecture upon this chapter : " Some," says he, " are satis
fied with a very small portion of the word of God ; but the apostle
desires we should have much of it 1 ."
Our adversaries urge many objections against such knowledge
being diffused amongst the people. In the first place they allege
what is found in Luke viii. 10, where Christ says to his disciples :
" Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God,
but to the rest I speak in parables." Hence they conclude that
the scriptures should only be communicated to the learned and
well-instructed, that is, to the ministers, bishops, priests and pro
fessors, bat refused to the laity and unlearned people.
But I answer, that Christ spoke in that place not of the com
mon people, but of the scribes and Pharisees who proudly resisted
him, who " seeing saw not, and hearing did not understand ;"
and therefore that those words have no reference to the cause we
have in hand. Thus it is that cardinal Hugo (not to mention
others) interprets this place ; and so also the ordinary gloss. Thus
Hugo : "To you ; that is, who hear willingly, and repose faith in
my words 2 ." And the ordinary gloss still more plainly in this man
ner : " Holy things are to be imparted to you who are faithful,
not to the incredulous Pharisees 3 ." These words of Christ, therefore,
are no obstacle to the reading of holy scripture by the laity and
unlearned persons.
Against such a knowledge in the people, in the second place, Ho-
sius (in his book de Sacr. Vernac. Legend. Opp. p. 742. Lugd 1563)
objects certain testimonies of the fathers ; as namely, Augustine, Con
tra Epist. Fundament, c. 4, where he says; "It is not the vivacity
of their understanding, but the simplicity of belief which best secures
the multitude 4 ;" and in his 102nd Epistle 5 , where he says: "If Christ
[* Quibusdam sufficit modicum quid de verbo Dei : sed apostolus vult
quod habeamus multum, p. 164. 2. T. xvi. Opp. Yenet. 1593.]
[ 2 Vobis, hoc est, qui libenter auditis, et fidem habetis verbis meis.j
[3 Vobis qui fideles estis, non Pharisseis incredulis, sancta sunt danda,]
[ 4 Turbam non intelligendi vivacitas, sed credendi simplicitas tutam facit.
Tom. x. p. 183. Opp. Bassan. 1797.]
[ 5 Si propter cos solos Christus mortuus est qui certa intelligentia possunt
ista discernere, pene frustra in ecclesia laboramus. T. n. p. 786.]
XV.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 241
died only for those who can distinguish these matters by a certain
intelligence, we labour almost in vain in the church," &c. To the
same effect also he produces Gregory Nazianzen, Lib. i. de Theo-
logia, where he says : " It is not the business of all persons to
dispute concerning God, and the things of God 6 ," &c.
I answer, These testimonies do by no means prohibit the read
ing of the scriptures, as will better appear upon a particular exami
nation of them. For first, as to Augustine : I allow with him,
that an accurate knowledge of mysteries is not required of the com
mon people, fcut that it is sufficient for them if they hold the
foundation of religion sound and whole : for all cannot be quick
in understanding, and it is enough if they be simple in believing.
But this simplicity is not that sort of brute ignorance which the
papists would have in their laity ; since such an ignorance, as the
papists defend, should rather be styled utter stupidity than simpli
city. But the simplicity of Christians should be combined with
prudence ; for while Christ would have us to be simple as doves, he
would have us also to be wise as serpents, Matth. x. 16. Christ
died for many, who cannot dispute acutely of the mystery of salva
tion, or handle and discuss theological questions in a scholastic man
ner : this I allow to be said, and truly said, by Augustine ; but
this does not prove that no knowledge is required in the people.
I confess that the people do not need to have as much knowledge
as the learned, who are wholly occupied in books and literature ;
but the people ought not to be (as the papists would have them)
wholly ignorant of the scriptures and of all knowledge. Gregory
the Great hath a somewhat similar maxim : " In the common peo
ple it is not knowledge, but a good life that is requisite 7 ." And
Tertullian, in his Prescriptions against Heretics : " This faith of
thine hath saved thee ; thy faith, he says, not thy knowledge or
expertness in scripture 8 ." The same answer will serve for the pas
sage from Nazianzen. He does not say that the scriptures should
not be read by the people, but that every body is not competent
to determine questions concerning God and abstruse mysteries of
religion : ov Travros TO Trepl Qeov (pikovcxpeiv* which we will-
[ 6 Ov iravros, &lt;o OVTOI, TO Trepl Qeov (pikoo-otydv, ov TravTos, ov% oureo TO
7rpayfj.a fvatvov . . . TTpoo-^cra) 8e, ovde iravroTf, ovSe Traaiv, ovfte navTa. Orat.
xxxm. p. 530, c. T. i. Col. 1690.]
[ 7 Non requiritur in vulgo scientia, sed bona vita.]
[ 8 Fides, inquit, tua te salvam fecit, non exercitatio scripturarum. c. 14.
p. 10. P. m. Tertull. Opp. Lips. 1841.]
[WHITAKER.]
242 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
ingly allow. " For the matter," says he, " is not so mean and
vile, ov~ ovro) TO TTpayima evaovov, as that every one is able
to philosophize upon it." Then he says a little lower down,
" Neither all subjects indiscriminately should be discoursed of, nor
yet everywhere or to all: 11 ovre Trctwrore, OVTG TTCLCTLV^ ovre
Travra. Those, therefore, who have never read or heard anything,
or who are unskilful, and yet venture to discuss divine matters,
such persons are deservedly obnoxious to blame ; and such are the
persons whom Nazianzen means. The unskilful ought, indeed, to
leave such discussions to others. But the same father 1 exhorts all
men to the reading -of scripture, from that passage of David,
Psalm i. 2 : " And in the law of the Lord he meditates day and
night ;" and from Deut. vi. : " Yea," says he in that same place,
" we should think of God oftener than we breathe : /Uivri^ovevreov
TOV Geou jUiaXXov rj avairvevcrreov and, if possible, oucev a\\o
TrpaKTeov, nothing else should be done." This very learned father
Nazianzen therefore is no patron of the papists.
Our fifth argument is to this effect : Christ taught the people
in their mother-tongue ; so also the apostles and disciples of Christ,
as well when upon the day of Pentecost they published the gospel
in a known tongue, as afterwards when, scattered over the whole
world, they taught all nations in their own native languages.
Hence we draw our conclusion thus : The holy doctrine of the
gospel is not contaminated when preached or taught in the verna
cular tongue ; therefore, not when it is written or read in the
vernacular tongue. This is the argument of Chemnitz, which the
Jesuit, in his manuscript lectures, pronounces not worth a farthing.
The question of farthings will give us no concern. The point is to
know, why it is invalid ? " Firstly," says he, " because an
argument from the preaching of the word to the writing of the
word is inconsequential ; since in preaching every thing may be
so explained to the people as to make them capable of understand
ing it ; but in writing each matter is propounded nakedly by itself.
Secondly, because the apostles preached in various tongues, but all
wrote in the same language."
Let us examine this reply of the Jesuit s. I allow, indeed, that
the word preached is much more easily understood than when it is
[ 1 Kayo) Toiv 7raivovvTcov et/u TOV \6yov, os p.f\Tav rj^epas KOI VVKTOS 8ia-
KeXeverai, KCU ecnrepas Kal Trpwt KOI fj.O"ijp^pias Si^yeTcr&it, KOI tiiXoyelv TOV
Kvpiov V Travrl Kaipto el del Kdi TO Mcoucrecos flrrelvf Koi
fJLVOV, odoiTTOpOVVTd, OTLOVV aXXo TTpaTTOVTO.. Ut Slip. p. 531. B.]
XV.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 243
merely read ; because, when preached, each several point is ex
plained, and variously accommodated and referred to the use of the
people, which cannot be done when it is merely read. Nevertheless
the same word should be set forth for the people in their mother
tongue, in order that, when it is preached, they may have it in
their hands, and so may see whether that which is propounded to
them be indeed the word of God, as we read of the Beroeans, Acts
xvii. ; otherwise any one, at his pleasure, might deliver what he
liked to the people, and enjoin it upon them as the word of God.
And the people will derive from this combined preaching and read
ing of the scripture advantages both solid and abundant. Besides,
although they do not immediately understand all they read, yet
they do understand much, and will understand more every day,
if they persevere in reading. What is to-day obscure, will become
clearer to-morrow ; what is now unknown, will afterwards, by use
and exercise, become better understood. Furthermore, I confess,
too, that the apostles wrote only in one language ; for it would have
been an infinite task to have written the same things in all the
languages of all nations : but I say that this one tongue was the
commonest and most generally diffused of all, so as to render it the
more easy for the scripture to reach the greatest possible number,
and be the better and more quickly translated into all other lan
guages. Translated, in fact, it was immediately, as we have already
said, and shall presently shew.
But here the Jesuit brings a comparison, of how many far
things worth it may be well to consider. Nurses, says he, do
not put the food whole into the mouths of infants, but chewed
before-hand ; and in the same way, ministers should not deliver
the book of scripture entire to the people. I answer : The people
should not be always like infants, so as always to require chewed
meat ; that is, when they hear the scripture in their native lan
guage, understand nothing of it unless it be explained by a mi
nister. The minister s voice is indeed required, that the people
may understand obscure passages, and be excited to the practice
and exercise of those duties which they have learned from the
word : yet should they not be so ignorant and childish as not to
recognise and understand the reading of the scriptures. Such a
state of childhood in the people the apostle frequently reprehends,
as in 1 Cor. xiv. 20 ; Eph. iv. 14 ; Heb. v. 12 ; and requires from
them senses exercised in scripture, aiaO^r^pia yeyv^acrimeva. It
is not fit, therefore, that the people should be always infants, but
162
244 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
in due time they should become men, and "put away childish
things," 1 Cor. xiii. 11.
Our last argument (not to heap up too many) is drawn from
the use and practice of the ancient church. It is evident from
history and the books of the holy fathers, that the scriptures were
translated into all languages, and that the people were always ad
monished by their pastors to read them with diligence and assiduity.
Hence we draw our conclusion thus : Formerly the scriptures were
extant in vernacular languages, and were also read by the people.
Therefore the same is lawful at the present day.
The antecedent hath been proved already above, where we
shewed that Jerome translated the scriptures into Dalmatian,
Chrysostom into Armenian, Ulphilas, a bishop of the Goths,
into Gothic ; and others into other languages. But the Jesuit
replies, that, though the scriptures may lawfully be translated
into vernacular languages, yet, when so translated, they should
not be read publicly in the churches ; and that, as to those ver
nacular versions of Jerome, Chrysostom, and the rest, which
we mentioned above, they were not communicated to all, but
were only written for the consolation of some particular persons.
But the Jesuit cannot thus escape through such a chink as this.
For, since the reason of these versions was a public one, and had
regard to all, namely, that all might thus be enabled to read the
scriptures, and obtain a knowledge of them, this fiction of the
Jesuit s is easily confuted. Now the truth of this appears from the
design of all these versions : and specially of the Gothic Socrates,
Lib. TV. c. 33, tells us that its reason and end was that the barba
rians might learn and understand " the divine oracles." The scrip
tures, therefore, were not translated for the sake of a few, but of
all, in order that they might be read by all. For what else could
be the reason of these versions ? If they had been unwilling that
the scriptures should be publicly read, they would never have put
them into the vulgar tongue. If it had been unlawful for the
scriptures to be read publicly in the vulgar tongue, as the papists
would persuade us, can we suppose that Jerome, Chrysostom, and
other pious fathers, would ever have rendered them into the proper
and native language of the common people ? This is incredible
and absurd. But I shall prove, by many testimonies of the fathers
that the scriptures were read by all. Jerome, upon Ps. Ixxxvi.
writes thus 1 : "The Lord hath related in the scriptures of the
[ l T. vm. p. 103.]
XV.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 245
people, the holy scriptures ; which scriptures," says he, " are
read by all people:" whence it appears that none were prevent
ed from reading them. But why were the scriptures read by
all people ? Jerome answers in the same place, to the end
" that all might understand." Not therefore, according to the
Jesuit s fiction, that one or a few might understand them. Chry-
sostom, in his first Homily 2 upon the Gospel of John, writes that
the Syrians, Egyptians, Indians, Persians, Ethiopians, and innumer
able other nations, had translated the divine doctrines " into their
own language, and thus the barbarians had learned philosophy."
If any one desires a still more illustrious testimony, let him
read Augustine, De Doct. Christ. Lib. u. c. 5, where these words
may be found: "Hence it hath come to pass, that the scripture
of God (which is the remedy for such grievous disorders of the
human will), proceeding from one language, commodiously fitted
for dissemination through the globe, and diffused far and wide
by the various tongues of its interpreters, hath become known
to all people for their salvation ; which when they read, they
desire nothing else but to find out the thoughts and will of those
by whom it was written, and through them the will of God, ac
cording to which we believe that such men as they were spoke 3 ."
Thus far Augustine, in whose words we may observe these five
points : First, that the scripture was published in that language,
from which it might most conveniently be transfused into others.
Secondly, that in fact it was variously translated. Thirdly, that it
thus became known to all for salvation. Fourthly, that it was read
by the people ; which is evident from the words, "reading which
they desire nothing else." Fifthly, that it was not only read, but
understood ; which the last words render sufficiently apparent.
Theodoret, in the fifth book of Therapeutic Discourses, estab
lishes the same fact in these words : " The Hebrew books were
not only translated into the Greek language, but into the Ro
man tongue also, into the Egyptian, Persian, Indian, Armenian,
[ 2 Horn. 2. al. 1. T. vm. p. 10, B.]
[ 3 Ex quo factum est, ut scriptura divina (qua tantis morbis humanarum
voluntatum subvenitur), ab una lingua profecta, quse opportune potuit per
orbem terrarum disseminari, per varias interpretum linguas longe lateque
diffusa, innotesceret gentibus ad salutem; quam legentes nihil aliud appe-
tunt, quam cogitationes voluntatemque illorum a quibus conscripta est inve-
nire, et per illas voluntatem Dei, secundum quam tales homines loquutos esse
credimus.j
246 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
Scythian, and even Sarmatian, or (to say it at once in one
word) into all the languages which nations use up to this day 1 ."
Nothing could possibly be written more explicitly.
From what hath been said, it is evident that the scriptures
were formerly translated into the vulgar tongue; not only into
some certain languages, but into all promiscuously. Where
fore now, in like manner, they should be translated and read
vernacularly. Were I now to proceed in detail through all those
sentences of the fathers in which they exhort the people to the
study of the scriptures, I should never come to an end. Chry-
sostom presses this exhortation most earnestly in many places, and
is so vehement in the matter that we seem actually frigid in com
parison of him. In his ninth Homily upon the Epistle to the
Colossians, he uses these expressions: "Hear me, I beseech you,
all men of secular life. Procure for yourselves bibles, the medicines
of the soul. If ye will have nothing else, get yourselves even the
new Testament alone, the Apostolic Epistles, the Acts, the Gospels,
as your constant and perpetual instructors. Should any distress
befall you, apply to this as a dispensary of remedies. Hence draw
your balm, whether it be losses, or death, or domestic bereavement,
that hath befallen you. Nay, not only apply to it, but take it all
in and hold it in your mind. The one great cause of all evils is
ignorance of scripture." In the same place, he addresses fathers
of families thus : " You lay every thing on our shoulders : it were
fitting that you only should need to be instructed by us, and by
you your wives, and by you your children, should be taught 2 /
Hence it appears how absurd is the answer of the Jesuit,
when he endeavours to wrest the testimony of this father out of
our hands. " Chrysostom," says he, " is not to be understood in
the sense which the words seem to bear at first sight ; for he
speaks with exaggerated emphasis. He only wishes by these
exhortations to take the people off from the games and spectacles
to which they were at that time wholly given up." To which I
might reply, that now also there are games and spectacles and
many other occasions by which the people are seduced from piety;
[* Kai 77 *E/3pcuW (fxovrj ov p.6vov els rrjv TO&gt;V E\\r]va&gt;v /u,er 6/3X77 $77, aXXa
KOI fls TTJV rmv Pco/zatW KCU AlyvTrrioov KCU Hepcrwv KCU ivSiov KCU A/&gt;/zmW
Kal "2KvOcov KOI 2avpo/zarc5j/, Kai &lt;Tv\\^j3^r]v drrelv, els 7rd&lt;ras ras yXco rras als
ajravra ra Win] Kxpr)fj.eva StareXei. Greec. Affect. Curat. (ed. Svlburg. 1692.)
Serai, v. p. 81. 1. 14.]
[ 2 T. xi. p. 390.]
XV.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 247
and that therefore in these times also they should be exhorted to
read the scriptures. But it is manifest that Chrysostom did not
merely say these things to deter the people from such trifling and
seductive amusements, or take them off from their pursuits, but
because he thought the perusal of the scriptures appertained to the
duty of the people. In consequence, in his third Homily upon
Lazarus, he wishes the people to examine the passage at home
which he was about to treat of in the church. His words are
as follows : " On this very account we often forewarn you, many
days before, of the subject upon which we intend to speak, in
order that, in the intervening time, you may take up the book
and weigh the whole matter ; and thus, by distinctly understand
ing what hath been^ said and what still remains to be said, your
minds may be the better prepared to hear what shall afterwards
be discoursed to you. And now I constantly exhort you, and
shall never cease to exhort you, not merely to attend here to what
is said to you, but also, when you are at home, to betake your
selves assiduously to the perusal of the holy scriptures 3 ." Then
he removes all the excuses which the people used to allege for
not reading the sacred scriptures, not only that about the spec
tacles, but others much more reasonable, as the following : "I am
not a monk, but a layman ; I have a wife, and children, and a
family to mind, and am distracted by a multiplicity of avocations ;
this appertains to others and not to me." All these he removes,
and affirms more than once : " It is impossible, it is, I say, impos
sible, that any one can obtain salvation, who is not continually
employed in spiritual studies." Yea, he removes also the excuse
grounded upon the obscurity of scripture, and says that it is
nothing but " a pretext and cloak of carelessness." He writes
to the same effect, Horn. 29 in Genes. ; Horn. 13 in Joan. ; Horn.
2 in Matt. ; Horn. 3 in 2 Thess. ; and elsewhere ; which testimony
I, for the present, omit to cite at length.
Other fathers also agree with Chrysostom and us in this
matter. Origen, Horn. 12 in Exod. 4 , blames the people in many
words for not attending to the scripture in church, and meditating
upon it at home also. The same author, in his second Homily
upon Isaiah, says : " Would that we all did that which is written,
* Search the scriptures 5 ." He says all, not merely the learned, or
[3 T. i. p. 737. A. B.]
[ 4 p. 174. A. ed. Benedict.]
[ 5 Utinamque omnes facereraus illud quod scriptum est, Scrutamini scrip-
turas. Opp. T. i. p. 639. Basil. 1536.]
248 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
the bishops, or the spiritualty. Jerome, in his Epistle to Eusto-
chium, exhorts her to the constant reading of the scriptures. But
here the Jesuit answers, that Eustochium and her mother Paula
understood not only Latin, but Greek and Hebrew also ; and adds
farther, that they were modest women, and that, if all women were
like them, they might without danger be permitted to read the holy
scriptures. But Jerome invites not only Eustochium, but all pious
women to the reading of the scriptures ; and in the epitaph of
Paula he affirms, that not only Eustochium but all the sisters sung
the Psalms of David in course : " None of the sisters," says he,
" was allowed to remain ignorant of the Psalms, or to fail of learn
ing something from the holy scriptures every day 1 ." Writing to
the widow Salvina 2 , he exhorts her to be continually occupied with
pious reading. So also he exhorts a matron named Celancia 3 , to
make it "her chief care" to know the law of God. And he writes
in the same strain to many other females. Thus of old times all,
both men and women, whose souls were warmed with any zeal for
piety, were occupied in the reading of the scriptures.
Theodoret, in the book already cited, namely, the fifth of his
Therapeutic Discourses, writes thus concerning the present subject :
" You may see everywhere these doctrines of ours understood not
only by those who are masters in the church and teachers of the
people, but by the very cobblers and smiths, weavers and artisans
of every kind, yea, and by women too of all classes ; not alone
those, if there be such, who are acquainted with literature, but by
those who work for hire with their needles, by maid-servants and
nursery girls. Nor is it only the inhabitants of cities who know
these things, but the rustics have almost an equal acquaintance with
them; and you will find men who dig the ground, or tend cattle, or
plant vegetables, who can dispute of the divine Trinity and the cre
ation of all things, and who are better acquainted with human
nature than Plato and the Stagirite were 4 ." Thus Theodoret. But
[ l Nee licebat cuiquam sore-rum ignorare Psalmos, et non quotidie aliquid
de scripturis sanctis discere. Opp. p. 706. T. i.j
[ 2 T. i. p. 493.]
P T. i. p. 1089.]
[^ Kai fcrriv Ide iv ravra eldoras TO. Soy^iara, ov povovs ye Ttja KK\rjcrLas
rovs Sidao-KaXovs, dXXa KCU ovcvroro/ious, KOI ^aXKorvTrovs, Kal TaXacrtovpyot&gt;y,
Kai rovs a\\ovs a,7roxipo(3i&Tovs Kal yvvaiKas cocravreos, ov /JLOVOV ras Xoycoi/
fjLTfO~x&gt;1Kvias, aXXa KOI xepvrjrio as KOI diceo-rpiSay, KOI pevroi Kal 6cpa.Tra.ivas
Kal ov fJiovov darot, dXXa Kai ^copiri/cot rrjvde rrjv yvaxriv eV^Kacri Kal O~TIV
evptiv Kal o~Ka7raveas Kal /So^Xaras- Kal (frvrovpyovs nepl rfjs Qelas StaXeyo/ze-
XV.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 249
the papists now make it a matter of reproach to us, that amongst
us women converse about sacred matters, or any men even except
the learned. Hosius complains bitterly of this in his book, De Sacro
vernacule Legendo. " This profanation," says he, " rather than
translation of the scripture has brought us not only men belt-
makers, porters, bakers, tailors, cobblers ; but also female belt-
makers, sewers and stitchers, she-apostles, prophetesses, doc-
tresses 5 :" as if, forsooth, it were not lawful for women, in what
ever station of life, to understand the mysteries of religion. And
Alphonsus de Castro, de Just. Punit. ffceret. Lib. in. c. 6, says
that the translation of the scriptures into the vulgar tongue is " the
cause of all heresies 6 :" of course, because whatever displeases the
Roman pontiff is undoubtedly heretical. But Eusebius, Demonstr.
Evang. Lib. i. c. 6, passes a much sounder judgment upon this
matter, when he says : " The divine doctrines may be learned as
well by women as by men, by the poor as by the rich, by servants
as by masters 7 ." Erasmus, a man of the greatest judgment and
extraordinary genius, affirms in many places, that it is necessary
that the scriptures should be translated and read by the people ;
and, when he was blamed on that account by the divines of Paris,
he defended himself against them not only by the precedent of the
ancient church, but by the necessity of the thing itself.
And let this suffice upon the first member of the second part of
this second question.
vovs rpiaSoy, icai ircpl TT)$ TI&gt; oXcoi/ SrjjjLiovpyias, KOI TTJV avdpoTTfLav (pixnv
tiSoras ApioToreXovs TroXXw paXXov KOI nXarcoi/oy. p. 81. ed. Sylburg. 1592.
I have departed in one word from Sylburgius orthography, writing a7roxpo-
piwrovs for aTro^f ipopiorovs. There are indeed some instances of dfiioTos, but
Lobeck I think truly treats them as only a kind of a play upon /3toVos, in
connexion with which they occur. See Lobeck ad Phrynich. p. 713.]
[ 5 Profanatio hsec scripturse verius quam translatio non solum zonarios,
bovillos, pistores, sartores, sutores, ye rum etiam zonarias, bo villas, sartrices,
sutrices facit nobis apostolas, prophetissas, doctrices. Opp. p. 745. Lugdun.
1563.]
[ 6 The title of the chapter is De quinta causa hseresium, quae est Sacrse
Scripturse translatio in linguam vulgarem. Fol. 208. 2. Salmant. 1547.]
\} Jo-re Toiavra fiavddvfiv KOI (friXoa-otyew /MT) povov avdpas dXXa KOI yv-
vaiKdSj 7r\ov(riovs re Ko.1 TreVqras, KOI dov\ovs q/ia SecrTrorcus 1 . p. 24. D. ed.
Viger. Paris. 1628.]
250 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
CHAPTER XVI.
STATE OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING PUBLIC PRAYERS AND
SACRED RITES IN THE VULGAR TONGUE.
WE have now at length come to the second member of the
second part of this question, which concerns the celebration of
divine service, that is, the public prayers and offices of the church,
in the vulgar tongue of all churches. The papists everywhere
make use of the Latin tongue in all their churches throughout all
nations : which practice, impious and absurd as it is, is yet con
firmed by the authority of the council of Trent, Sess. xxn. cap. 8 ;
where it is said "not to seem good to the fathers, that the mass
should everywhere be celebrated in the vulgar tongue." Now
under the name of the mass they understand the whole liturgy and
all the offices of the church. Nevertheless it is permitted in the
same decree " to pastors and those who have the cure of souls, fre
quently during the celebration of mass, either themselves or through
others, to expound some parts of what is read in the mass 1 ." And
in canon ix. of that session, the council says : " If any affirm that
the mass should only be celebrated in the vulgar tongue, let him be
anathema 2 ." Hosius also hath written a book upon this subject,
to which he gives this title, " De Sacro vernacule Legendo ;"
wherein he asserts that the Latin was the only language ever used
in the Western church, and the Greek in the Eastern. We, on
the contrary, maintain that always in all ancient churches of
the Christians the lessons and public prayers were held in that
language which the people understood, and that so it should always
[ l Etsi Missa magnam contincat populi fidelis eruditionem, non tamen
visum est patribus, ut vulgar! passim lingua celcbretur. Quamobrem, retento
ubique cujusque ecclesice antiquo, et a sancta Romana ecclesia, omnium
ecclesiarum matre et magistra, probato ritu, ne oves Christi esuriant, neve
parvuli panem petant, et non sit qui frangat eis, maiidat sancta Synodus pas-
toribus et singulis curam animarum gercntibus, ut frequenter inter missarum
celebrationem, vel per se vel per alios, ex iis quec in missa leguntur, aliquid
exponant, atque inter cetera sanctissimi hujus sacrificii mysterium aliquod
declarent, diebus prsesertim dominicis et festis. Sess. xxn. c. viii.j
[ 2 Si quis dixerit, ecclesise Romance ritum, quo submissa voce pars canonis
et verba consecrationis proferuntur, damnandum esse ; aut lingua tantum vul-
gari missam celebrari debere ; aut aquam non miscendam esse vino in calice
offerendo, eo quod sit contra Christi institutionem : anathema sit. Can. ix.
ut supra.]
XVI.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 251
be. Wherefore the reformed churches have justly banished these
Latin services. The state, therefore, of the controversy is this ;
whether public prayers are only to be held in the Latin tongue, or
in the vulgar tongue of every nation? We have already proved
that the scriptures should be translated into the vulgar tongue : and
since the reason is the same for celebrating prayers and translating
scripture vernacularly, the same arguments will serve for confirming
this cause as for the former. On this account the Jesuit hath
mixed up this question with the previous one, and treated of them
both together : yet it seemed to us more prudent to discuss these
matters separately.
So much we thought fit to premise upon the state of the
question. Let us now proceed to the arguments on both sides.
CHAPTER XVII.
THE ARGUMENTS OF THE PAPISTS FOR SERVICE IN A FOREIGN
TONGUE ARE CONFUTED.
IN the first place, as our proposed plan requires, we shall set
forth the arguments of the papists, upon which they rely to prove
that public prayers and the other offices of the church should only
be celebrated in the Latin tongue.
Their first argument is to this effect : The majesty of religious
offices requires a language more grand and venerable than the
vulgar tongues of every nation. Therefore they should be per
formed in Latin, not in the vernacular.
I answer : In the first place, What is that peculiar dignity,
majesty, or sanctity which the Latin tongue hath more than others?
Surely, none. Yea, nothing can be slighter, more futile, or more
foolish, than those common Latin services which are used by the
Roman church. For my part, I can recognise no greater holiness in
one language than in another ; nor a greater dignity either ; unless,
perhaps, they hold the Latin in such high esteem for the sake of
its phrases, its antiquity, or the mysteries which are consigned in
that language. But gravity, holiness, and majesty are in the things,
not in the tongue. The Latin, therefore, cannot contribute any
additional dignity to the scripture. Secondly, I deny that the
majesty of sacred things can be diminished by any vernacular
tongues, however barbarous. Nothing can be more dignified, ma
jestic, or holy than the gospel. Yet, Acts ii., it was expounded
252 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
and published by the apostles in all languages, even barbarous
ones : which they certainly never would have done, if they had
supposed that by so doing its majesty would have run the risk of
being in the slightest degree impaired. But the Jesuit urges that
there are many mysteries which must not be imparted to the
people ; and that they are profaned when they are translated into
the vulgar tongue, and so commonly published to everybody. This
he proves by the testimonies of certain fathers, as Dionysius the
Areopagite, Basil, and others. Nay, our countrymen the Rhemists,
too, urge the same plea in their Annotations upon 1 Cor. xiv., where
they complain most piteously that the mysteries of the sacraments
are horribly profaned, which should be carefully concealed from the
common people.
I answer : In the first place, neither Christ nor the apostles
ever commanded that those mysteries should be concealed from the
people. Yea, on the contrary, Christ instituted such sacraments in
order to instruct us through our very senses : this was the end of
the institution itself. And, indeed, the whole significance of these
mysteries was of old quite familiarly known by the people; and
therefore the apostle, 1 Cor. x. 15, when about to enter upon a
discourse concerning the sacraments, addresses the Corinthians thus :
" I speak as to wise men ; judge ye what I say." Consequently
they were not ignorant of the sacraments ; for he calls them wise
men, and would have them judge of what he was about to say.
Nothing, indeed, could bear a more ludicrous and trifling appearance
than the sacraments, unless their design and reason were known.
For what advantage could a gentile, or any one unacquainted with
that sacrament, suppose to have accrued to an infant by merely
seeing it baptized? What advantage, in his opinion, would a
Christian receive by taking a morsel of bread and a few drops of
wine? Surely nothing could seem more foolish to one who was
not acquainted with the reason and object of these ceremonies.
These therefore should not be concealed, but explained to God s
people ; and the hiding of them is an antichristian device to fill the
people with a stupid admiration of they know not what.
I answer, secondly, to the testimonies of the fathers : and, first,
to Dionysius 1 , whose words are cited from the book of the Ecclesi-
[! The works of the pseudo- Dionysius were published by Corderius in
Greek, Paris, 1615. But the last and best edition is that of 1644, printed
also at Paris with the Defensio Areopagitica of Chaumont. For a full ac
count compare Daille, de Script. Dion. Areop. Geneva, 1666; and Pearson,
Vindic. Ignat. par. 1. c. 10.]
XVII.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 253
astical Hierarchy, cap. 1, where he admonishes Timotheus, to whom
he writes, concerning the sacred mysteries, a/ueOeKTo. KCU a^pavra
~. &gt; .. / PI -* -i ~ / ~ ~
Tots arcAecTTots oictTrjpeiV) and lepois JU.OVOLS TWV icpwv KOLVWVGIV
that is, " that they should not be imparted to the uninitiate, because
holy things are only to be given to holy persons, and pearls are
not to be cast to swine." Now, as to this Dionysius, I deny, in the
first place, that he is the Areopagite mentioned Acts xvii. 34. And
this I do, not because I feel uneasy at his testimony (for he says no
more than what Christ himself distinctly enjoins, Matt. vii. 6); but
because I am led to form this opinion by certain arguments, which
it is not, at present, needful for me to touch upon. There will be
another opportunity of speaking about this Dionysius. Secondly,
I say that his opinion is true and pious, and makes, in no respect,
against us, as will readily appear to any one who will consider the
passage. The sense of his words is, that holy things are not to be
exposed or cast before heathen, gentiles, and profane persons :
which, indeed, ought to hold as well in the case of the word, as in
that of the sacraments. But the fathers formerly were much more
cautious with respect to the sacraments than the word ; because
heathen and impure men used to deride and despise the sacraments
much more than the preaching of the word. JS"ow that this is the
meaning of Dionysius, his scholiast Maximus informs us ; whose
words are as follows: " It is not fit to reveal the holy things to the
profane, nor to fling pearls to swine 2 ." But the laity ought not to
be compared to swine, nor treated as profane, or spectators of the
Eleusinian mysteries. If they wish to be pious, holy, and faithful,
they should be acquainted with the design of the mysteries. And
I make the same answer to the testimony of Basil, which is con
tained in his treatise, de Sp. S., Lib. n. c. 27 3 . The people cer
tainly are not bound to feel much indebted to those who think of
them so meanly and dishonourably as to regard them as swine and
[ 2 ov 8f1 ra ayia rots /Se/S^Xof? eieffxiivciv, ovfte rovs papyapiras rots xip ls
piTTTfiv. This scholiast was Maximus the Confessor, who flourished about the
year 645.]
[3 a yap ovde eTTOTrreveiv e^eari rols dp-v^TOis, TOVTCOV TTCOS av r^v eiKos TJ)I/
fiiSaoTKaAtai/ 6piap,ftevfiv lv ypa^aa-iv. Basil. Opp. T. II. p. 211. B. Which,
by the way, is a good instance of 0pia/i/3euo&gt; in the sense of openly displaying.
Cf. Col. ii. 15 ; 2 Cor. ii. 14. I observe another instance in Cabasilas, as
given in Jahn s Lerefrilchte byzantinischer Theologie, in Ullman s Studien
und Krit. for 1843, part 3, p. 744, n. 62. dvolv OVTCOV, a 8fj\ov Kadia-TTjo-t KCU
6pia/j.lBfVt. rbv
254 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
dogs. Chrysostom, Horn. 24, in Matt., and Gregory, Dial. Lib. iv.
c. 56, contain nothing pertinent to the present question.
The second argument of our adversaries is grounded upon the
authority of scripture, namely, Levit. xvi. 17, where the people are
commanded to remain without and wait for the priest, whilst he
enters the sanctuary, and offers up prayers alone for himself and
the people. This is commanded in that passage ; and an example
of the practice is given Luke i. 10, where we read that the people
stood without, while Zacharias offered incense in the temple : whence
it is clear that the people not only did not understand the priest,
but did not even hear him. Therefore it is considered unnecessary
that the people should understand the prayers which are offered by
the priest to God.
I answer : That the conclusion does not follow from this precept
and example. For, in the first place, there was an express com
mandment of God that the people should remain without, and the
priest alone should offer incense in the sanctuary. Let them, if
they can, produce any similar command for their Latin liturgy and
foreign services, and we will yield to their opinion. But they
cannot ; and, in matters of religion, nothing should be attempted
without a command. Secondly, this was typical. Therefore the
same should not now be done ; since all the old types have been
done away. The priest was in the place of Christ, and represented
him, who thus went up alone into the sanctuary, that is, into heaven,
where he now intercedes with God for the church, although we do
not now see or hear him. I deny that this should now be imitated
by us ; for typical observances have now no place. Thirdly, the
people were not able even to hear the absent priest speaking, much
less to understand what he said : but when the priest spoke in
presence of the people, he spoke in such a manner as to be under
stood by all. But the priests of the papists, even under the eyes
and in the audience of the people, perform and celebrate their
unholy rites and sacrifices, which are no sacrifices, in a foreign
tongue.
Their third argument is that of cardinal Hosius, in his book,
De Sacro vernac. Legendo, and is to this effect : " Religion and
piety have been so far from being increased, that they have been
diminished, since some have begun to use the Vulgar tongue in the
offices of the church. Therefore they ought rather to be per
formed and celebrated in the Latin language."
I answer, in the first place, Though we were to concede the
XVII.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 255
truth of what Hosius affirms, it will not follow thence that the public
service should be performed in Latin, and not in the Vulgar tongue.
For what if many are made worse? Will it therefore follow that
vernacular prayers are to be entirely banished ? The doctrine of
the gospel renders many more perverse and obstinate; yet it ought
not, on that account, to be concealed from the people. When Christ
preached and taught the people, the Pharisees were made more
obstinate ; and the apostle says that the gospel is to some the
savour of death unto death : and yet nevertheless the gospel should
always be preached. That reason, therefore, is not a just cause
why the offices of the church should not be performed in the Vul
gar tongue, because many are thereby rendered worse ; unless it
be proved that the vernacular language is the cause of that ill
effect: which they cannot prove. Secondly, I say that what is
supposed in the antecedent is untrue. For although there does
not appear in the people so much superstition as formerly ; yet in
the reformed churches at the present day the sincerity of true
religion is more flourishing. The people, indeed, are not so super
stitious as they were formerly : they then feared everything with
a certain stupid superstition, which, it must be allowed, repressed,
however, many crimes. Yet they are now much more religious in
our churches. For they are deceived, who suppose that there is
any piety, or virtue, or religion, in blind ignorance or superstition.
And although there be amongst us many profane persons, such as
there will never be lacking in the church of God, there are yet
many who have a true sense of religion. So much upon the
argument of Hosius.
The fourth argument is that adduced by Harding 1 in his third
article against Jewel, sect. 8. which stands thus : "A great part of
Asia Minor used only the Greek language in their service ; but
the whole people did not understand Greek. Therefore it is law T
ful to use an unknown tongue in the public service."
I answer, firstly, he should prove that all Asia Minor used the
Greek language in their service ; which since he fails to do, his syl
logism is composed of merely particular propositions, and therefore
concludes nothing. Secondly, he should prove his minor. He con-
[ l " The less Asia, being a principal part of the Greek Church, had then
the service in the Greek tongue. But the people of sundry regions and
countries of the less Asia then understood not the Greek tongue ; ergo, the
people of sundry regions and countries had then their service in an unknown
tongue." Apud Jewel, Art. in. . 8. p. 272. ut supra.]
256 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
firms it, indeed, by a twofold testimony. The first is taken from
Acts xiv. 11, where, when Paul had healed a man who was lame
from his mother s womb, the people are said to have lifted up their
voice AuKaoviarl, "in the speech of Lycaonia," and to have said,
" The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men." Hence
he collects that the whole people of Asia Minor did not understand
Greek, since the people of Lystra and Derbe, which were two
cities of Asia Minor, did not speak in Greek but in Lycaonian. I
answer ; the Lycaonian tongue was not a different language from
the Greek 1 , but only a different dialect. For Paul did not preach
the gospel to that people in Lycaonian, but in Greek ; while yet
the people doubtless understood what he said, as is manifest from
the instance of the lame man who was cured and converted by
Paul. If Paul had spoken in Lycaonian, and not in Greek, why
does Luke write particularly that they uttered this exclamation "in
the speech of Lycaonia ?" This reasoning, therefore, is the same as
if he were to say : they spoke Doric, and therefore did not speak
Greek. Furthermore, that they both understood and spoke Greek,
is evident from the fact that Amphilochius, a bishop of Lycaonia 2 ,
wrote in Greek, some fragments of whom are extant to this day.
The second testimony by which he confirms his minor, is
taken from the second chapter of the Acts, where Cappadocia,
Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia, &c., are enumerated as sundry
regions, and must therefore have used sundry languages. I an
swer : Some of those tongues which the apostles used, were not
altogether different and distinct, but only various dialects. So the
speech which the Galileans used was different from that of the
Jews ; yet not so as to be another language, but only another dia
lect. For the maid-servant doubtless understood Peter, who was
of Galilee, when she said, " Thy speech bewrayeth thee." So a
Cappadocian could understand a Phrygian speaking, a Pamphylian
[! We are left to mere conjecture upon this subject. Grotius supposed
the Lycaonian to be the same as the Cappadocian. Jablonsky determines
that it was a Greek dialect, but next akin to the Assyrian and thence derived.
Guhling published a separate dissertation, De Lingua Lycaonica a Pelasgis
Greeds orta Wittenberg, 1726, in which he contends that the Lycaonian was
derived from the Greek. See Kuinoel upon Acts xiv. 11.]
[ 2 i. e. Bishop of Iconium, the capital of Lycaonia. He nourished A. D.
370. The principal fragments that go under his name were published by
Combefis, Paris, 1644. But there is an epistle preserved by Cotelerius, in
his Monumenta, T. n. p. 99, which is supposed to be the only genuine piece
of his now extant.]
XVII.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 257
a Cretan, an Athenian a Spartan. Now that the people of Asia
Minor understood the Greek language is certain : for Paul wrote
to the Ephesians, to the Galatians, and to the Colossians in Greek.
But Ephesus, Galatia, and Colossse, were cities of Asia Minor. There
fore either all Asia, or a great part of this Asia, understood Greek :
otherwise Paul would never have written to them in Greek.
Besides, the same is evident from Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna,
Gregory, bishop of Nyssa, Basil, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia ;
who all, though bishops of Asia Minor, wrote all their works in
Greek. Jerome too, in his second proem to the Epistle to the
Galatians, affirms that the whole East spoke Greek 3 . The papists
therefore can never prove that Asia Minor did not use the Greek
language. Or, if amongst those people some were ignorant of
Greek, how will they prove that they had their service in the
Greek language? Hence their argument is inconsequential in
every possible way of considering it.
The fifth argument, which some at least advance, is of this
kind : Three languages were hallowed upon the cross : therefore
we ought to use only these languages in the public offices of the
church. And Bellarmine says that we should be content with
those three languages which Christ honoured upon the cross.
I answer : In the first place, that title was not written in three
languages in order that those languages should thereby be conse
crated to such a use ; but that the report of Christ s death should
so be diffused as widely as possible. Secondly, this is an allegori
cal argument, and therefore of itself concludes nothing. Thirdly,
Cajetan, Jentac. Lib. i. Quaest. 4, says that these three languages
" were the representatives of all languages 4 ," because the number
three denotes perfection. If this be so, then all the languages of
all nations can celebrate the death of Christ, and all the services
of Christianity.
The other arguments of the adversary in this question have
no weight in them whatsoever, and I will not be guilty of seeming
to waste time in unnecessary disputes.
[ 3 Excepto sermone Grseco, quo omnis oriens loquitur. T. iv. p. 1. 255.]
[ 4 Et tribus prsecipuis linguis omnium linguarum vices gerentibus. ex
ipsius etiam trinarii omnia complectentis perfectione, scribere disposuit.
Jentacula Novi Testamenti. 27. 2. Paris. 1536.]
1 7
[WHITAKER.]
258 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
CHAPTER XVIII.
OUR ARGUMENTS, WHEREBY WE PROVE THAT THE OFFICES OF THE
CHURCH SHOULD BE PERFORMED IN THE VERNACULAR LAN
GUAGE OF EVERY PEOPLE.
LET us now proceed to the establishment of our own opinion,
whither all those arguments which we used in the former part may
be referred. For if the scriptures should be read in the vulgar
tongue, then certainly the rest of the service should be performed
in the vulgar tongue also. However, we will now use some
peculiar and separate arguments in this question.
Our FIRST argument shall be taken from Paul s first epistle to
the Corinthians, chap. xiv. : in which chapter Paul directs, that
everything should be done for the edification of the people in the
church, that no one should speak in a strange tongue without an
interpreter ; and adds, that he would rather speak five words with
his understanding, so as to instruct others also, than ten thousand
words in an unknown tongue. And the whole chapter is spent
upon this subject. Whence it evidently appears that the popish
opinion is repugnant to apostolical teaching. We reason thus from
that chapter against the papists : If prayers in the Latin are
everywhere to be set forth for the people, then the people will
not understand what is said. But the apostle expressly forbids
this in this chapter. Therefore public prayers should not be
everywhere celebrated in the Latin tongue. However, let us
weigh the answer of our opponents to this reasoning; who, in
truth, are wonderfully perplexed at this passage, and have
devised many contrivances to evade it.
Some papists reply, that Paul does not speak in that chapter
of prayers, offices, or stated services, but of exhortations and public
sermons, which they confess should be delivered in the vulgar
tongue. But I deny that the meaning of the apostle was merely
to forbid a strange language in exhortations or sermons. For who
would have been mad enough to deliver an harangue to the people
in an unknown tongue ? Who could so much as have hoped that
the people would be sufficiently attentive to hear with patience and
civility a man uttering, by the space of an hour or more, words
which they did not understand? We read that some persons for
merly in the church preached in a foreign tongue, but we read also
that there were at the same time interpreters at hand. But this is
quite another matter. I allow, indeed, that the apostle does men-
XVIII.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 259
tion sermons; for it is with such a reference that he says, verse
29, " Let the prophets speak (XaXeiTcoo-av) by two or three, and
the rest judge :" but that this is his whole subject, upon which he
is entirely engaged throughout that chapter, I deny. For how are
we to understand what is said ver. 14, " If I pray in an unknown
tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful?"
Besides he speaks of services to which the people answer Amen.
Now the people use not to do this to sermons. He mentions also
giving of thanks and praising God. Nay, the fathers themselves,
Chrysostom, Theophylact, Ambrose, CEcumenius, and all who have
well explained this chapter, confess that Paul speaks not only of
exhortations and sermons, but also of public prayers. Yea, Hard
ing, Art. iii. Sect. 18 1 , allows that it was needful in the primitive
church that prayers should be held in the vulgar and intelligible
tongue, but contends that it is now no longer requisite. But now
the papists, become more learned, choose another mode of answer
ing. They confess, indeed, that the apostle speaks of public prayers;
but they deny it to be requisite that the whole people should un
derstand the prayers which the minister repeats ; for they say it
is sufficient if one only, whom they commonly call the clerk, un
derstand them, who is to answer Amen in behalf of the whole
congregation. They prove this from those words of the apostle,
at verse 16, " If thou shalt bless with the spirit, how (says the old
edition) shall he who supplies the place of the unlearned answer
Amen?" Thus Stapleton, in his English book against Jewel, Art. iii.
Thus a certain papist, who hath made an epitome of Bellarmine s
Lectures. So Thomas Aquinas. So Catharinus. So Sixtus Se-
nensis, Bibliothec. Lib. vi. Annot. 263.
I answer : In the first place, the Latin vulgate version is false
and foolish, and does not agree with the Greek text. For TOTTOS
never means the person of those represented ; and ava.7r\r)povv is
to fill, not to supply. So that the meaning is not, " he who sup
plies the place of the people/ as the old Latin edition renders it ;
but, " he who occupies the room, and sits amongst the laity,"
that is, he who is himself a layman and one of the common people.
For formerly the minister did not sit promiscuously with the
t 1 18 is a misprint for 28. Harding s words are : "But St Paul, say they,
requireth that the people give assent and conform themselves unto the
priest, by answering amen to his prayer made in the congregation. Verily,
in the primitive church this was necessary, when the faith was a-learning."
Ap. Jewel, p. 317, ut supra.]
172
260 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
people, but in a place separate from tlie people and the rest of
the multitude. This is what is referred to by the phrase, avawXri-
povv TOV TOTTOV TOV iSicoTov. And thus it is that Chrysostom,
Theophylact, and GEcumenius interpret this place. CEcumenius
says that he fills the place of the unlearned, who els iSiwrrjv reXeT,
is ranked as an unlearned person; and immediately subjoins,
"he calls him unlearned who is ranged in the rank of laymen 1 ."
Secondly, I say that there was no such person in the ancient
church as they call a clerk, but that the whole congregation together
answered Amen. So Jerome, in his second prologue to his com
mentary on the Galatians : " The whole church," says he, " re
plies with a thundering Amen 2 ." A single clerk, unless he be a
Stentor, cannot answer thus. So Chrysostom, as is manifest from
his liturgy, if indeed it be his, and not rather the work of some
body else published under his name 3 . So Cyprian, in his discourse
upon the Lord s prayer : " When the minister," says he, " hath
said, Lift up your heart/ the whole people answer, We lift them
up unto the Lord 4 . " But most plainly of all Justin Martyr, in his
Second Apology for the Christians: was o Xaos eTre^^^el A/u^V 5
" the whole people reply in token of assent, Amen." These
words, therefore, are not to be understood of such an imaginary
clerk, answering in the name of the whole people, as the papists
would have it.
But the Jesuit Bellarmine, and lately our countrymen, the
Rhemists, following his example, do not venture to trust to this
answer, and therefore have invented another. They say that the
apostle does not speak at all of divine service, or the public read
ing of the scripture, but of certain spiritual songs, which were
wholly extraordinary, and in which the Christians of those times
used to praise God, and give him thanks, and edify and comfort
one another. These, they say, are mentioned, Ephes. v. 19 and
Coloss. iii. 16, where the apostle bids the Christians to whom he
[* I8i&lt;&gt;rr]v Aey rov lv TW XaiVfO) ray/zart TZTa.-yp.evov. T. I. p. 560. Com-
mentt. in N. T. Paris. 1631.]
[ 2 Tota ecclesia instar tonitrui reboat Amen, ut supra."]
[ 3 See the excellent remarks of "the ever-memorable" Hales, at the end
of the article Chrysostom, in Cave s Historia Literaria.]
[ 4 Ideo et sacerdos ante orationem prsefatione prsemissa parat fratrum
mentes dicendo, Sursum corda ; ut dum respondet plebs, Habemus ad Domi-
num, &c. p. 152, ed. Fell. Amstel. 1691.]
[5 p. 98. E. Opp. Colon. 1686, or Paris, 1636.]
XVIII.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 261
writes, to speak to each other " in psalms and hymns, and spiritual
songs, singing and making melody in their hearts to the Lord;"
and that such songs are spoken of in this chapter, ver. 26, where
the apostle says, " when ye come together," e/cao-rcs vnwv \j/aA/xoj/
1, " each of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue,
hath a revelation : let all things be done unto edification."" Finally,
that Tertullian mentions these in his Apology, c. 39 6 , and also
other fathers : and that this cannot be understood of the public
offices and prayers, because the public prayers at Corinth were
then celebrated in the Greek language, which was understood by
all, and no strange tongue ; which Paul must have remembered
very well.
I answer : The apostle, I confess, speaks of those songs, and I
am not unaware of the existence of such hymns formerly amongst
Christians : but the apostle does not speak of them alone. For
he expressly mentions prayers, ver. 14, eav Trpoaevyw/nai Ty
yXwaarj, " If I pray in an unknown tongue." And although the
Corinthian church then used the Greek language in the service of
God, it does not therefore follow that these words of the apostle
are not to be understood of the public offices and service. Cer
tainly the whole discourse of the apostle is general. He speaks
generally and in common of all the offices of the church, and
condemns, on general grounds, the use of an unknown tongue in
the church, whether in sermons, or in prayers, or in songs. And
the first ground is this : an unknown tongue is useless ; therefore
it ought not to be used in the church. The antecedent is proved,
verse 2, where he says, " He that speaketh in an unknown tongue
speaketh not to men, but to God ; for no man understandeth him :
howbeit in the Spirit he speaketh mysteries." O \a\wi&gt; &lt;y\u)crcrri 9
" he that speaketh in a tongue," that is, an unknown tongue, says
Thomas Aquinas 7 ; "for no man heareth," that is, no one under
stands him. But in the church one should speak so as that not God
alone, but men also may understand him. This he proves also in
the sixth verse, where he says, " If 1 should come to you speaking
with tongues" (though innumerable), "what shall I profit you?" as
much as to say, you will derive no advantage whatever from my
discourse. And, verse 9, he says, eav /mrj euar/iuov \oyov SWTC,
" unless ye utter with the tongue words easy to be understood, how
[ 6 Post aquam manualem et lumina, ut quisque de scripturis sanctis vel
de proprio ingenio potest, provocatur in medium Deo canere. Apolog. c. 39.
p. 112. Opp. Tertull. Part 1. ed. Leopold. Lipsiae. 1839.]
[ 7 Comment, in loc.j
262 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
shall it be understood what is spoken ?" evevOe yap els aepa
\a\ovvT$ 9 " for ye shall be as if speaking into the air." From
these passages it is manifest that the apostle s meaning is this, that
whatever is spoken in the church in an unknown tongue is spoken
fruitlessly and in vain.
But the Jesuit and the Rhemists, setting themselves in open
opposition to the apostle, affirm that prayers, even when they
are not understood, are very edifying, although perhaps they
may be more edifying when they are understood. But the
apostle s words are clear, and must always be pressed upon
them, " What shall I profit you?" as if he had said, I cannot be
any way of use to you. So GEcumenius interprets those words,
OUK ecrofjLai v/uuv 7rw&lt;p\*is. And " ye shall be speaking into the
air," that is, fruitlessly and in vain : for so CEcumenius, ^arr\v
KOI avuxpeXws. So also Chrysostom, in his 35th Homily upon
this chapter : " Ye depart," says he, " ovSev KepSavavres, deriving
no advantage from a sound which ye do not understand 1 ." But let
us hear how the Jesuit proves that a prayer, though not under
stood, is useful to the people. Attend to his beautiful reason. The
minister, says he, or priest, does not pray to the people, but to God
for the people. Therefore, it is not necessary that the people
should understand what he says, but it is sufficient that God him
self understands him. Now he understands all languages. This
he illustrates by a comparison. As, says he, if one were to inter
cede with a king for a rustic, it is not necessary that the rustic
should understand what his patron says to the king in his behalf,
nor does he much care, provided only he obtain what he seeks ; so
it is not requisite that the people should understand those prayers
which the minister presents to God in their name. Besides, the
church prays even for the infidels and the absent. I answer, this
reasoning of the Jesuit is inconsequential ; and it is a bad argument
to say, prayer is not made to the people, but to God for the people;
therefore it is not necessary that the people should understand what
the minister prays. For the minister is, as it were, the people s
mouth. He prays, indeed, to God, but yet for the people ; and
although the people remain silent in their lips, while the minister
prays, yet meanwhile they follow him, as he prays, in their hearts,
and respond at the close, Amen ; by which expression they shew
f 1 *O Se Xe yei TOVTO earnv . . . . y\O)TTa&gt;v a&gt;v dicov(ravTes ovftev Kfpbdvavrfs arre-
\va-crde. TTWS yap UTTO (^coz^s-, ys ov crvviere ; Chrys. Opp. T. X. p. 233. The
Homilies on 1 Cor. are to be found in T. iv. of Saville s ed., and T. x. of the
Paris edition of Fronto Ducreus, 1613.]
XVIII.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 263
that the prayer is their own, and signify that they ask from God
whatever the minister himself hath asked. Otherwise, if the peo
ple did not pray along with the minister, it would not be necessary
for the people to be present, or assemble in the same place with the
minister, but the minister alone might pray for the people to God
in their absence. But prayers are public, that is, prayers of the
whole church. We see, therefore, that it is a foolish comparison
which the Jesuit uses. For if the rustic, of whom he speaks,
were to hear his advocate pleading his cause before the king in an
unknown tongue, and speaking words which he did not understand,
he might suspect that he was rather speaking against him than for
him. So the people, when they hear the minister pray in an un*-
known tongue, may doubt whether he prays for them, or for others,
or against them. What if even the priest himself do not under
stand what he is saying ? the possibility of which experience hath
taught in the case of many priests of the Roman church.
But the apostle, at verse 14, blames altogether all use of an
unknown tongue in public prayers : " If I should pray," says he,
" in a tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is un
fruitful." And it is plain that he there speaks of public prayers ;
first, because, verse 19, he says, ev rrj eKKXrjcriq, in the church;
secondly, because he speaks of such prayers as the people said
Amen to, as a token of their assent, as is plain from verse 16 ;
which is only done when the people are assembled together in
one place. Therefore, unless the prayer be understood, the un
derstanding will be cLKapiros, unfruitful ; that is, no advantage
will accrue to the church from the conceptions of your under
standing. The Jesuit and the papists give a wrong and foolish
interpretation of that whole fourteenth verse, to this effect: "If
I pray in a tongue, my mind or my understanding is not in
structed, because indeed it does not understand what I say : but
meanwhile my spirit, that is, my affections," so they expound
it, "are edified." For example, says Bellarmine, if one were to
recite the seven psalms, and not to understand what he was
reciting, his understanding is not improved, yet his affections mean
while are improved. The sum, therefore, of this interpretation is
this : if I pray in an unknown tongue, although I do not under
stand the words, yet my affections are thereby made better.
I answer, in the first place, this is an utterly ridiculous inter
pretation. For he who recites any prayers or psalms in a language
which he does not understand, is no more improved than if he had
not recited them at all. His good affection, or desire of praying, is
264 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
not assisted by reading he knows not what. But if the affections of
him who prays in an unknown tongue be good, and his reason no
way benefited, because he does not understand his prayer; why
does he not use a language with which he is acquainted, that he
may derive a double advantage, both to his affections and to his un
derstanding? Secondly, the papists themselves confess that prayers
expressed in a language known and understood are more useful and
advantageous. Why then do they not pray in a known tongue ?
For prayers should be made in that manner in which they are
likely to be most useful to us. Now that prayers, when under
stood, are more useful than prayers not understood, the Jesuit con
cedes ; and so does Harding, as may be seen, Art. m. Sect. 29. l
And De Lyra also, upon 1 Cor. xiv., says that the people, if they
understand the prayer of the priest, are " better brought to God,
and answer Amen with more devotion." If this be, as indeed it is,
most true, we see that there are very just reasons why the people
should understand their prayers : and yet Stapleton was not ashamed
in his English book against the very learned Jewel to say, Art. m.
p. 75, that devotion is not assisted, but impeded, when the language
is known and understood. Thirdly, since it is certain that prayer
is a mode of speech, is it not ridiculous to pray in an unknown
tongue ? Who is there so destitute of common sense, as to choose,
especially in the presence of others, to speak in such a language as
either he himself is ignorant of, or the audience do not understand?
Whence CEcumenius upon this chapter distinctly affirms prayer to be
a kind of speech : Trjoocref^i), says he, GOTLV el&&amp;gt;9 TI TOV \oyov
and he interprets verse 14 thus : If I speak anything necessary
and good, and expound it not to my audience, my spirit prays,
that is, I myself derive some advantage ; but my understanding is
unfruitful, that is, the conceptions of my understandimg bring no
advantage to others. Hence it is manifest that the sense of these
words is very different from what they suppose. So Chrysostom
expounds this passage ; and Basil most expressly and plainly of all,
in his Epitome of Definitions, Def. 278, " My understanding is un
fruitful, because no one is benefited :" and he adds, that this is
spoken of them who " pray in an unknown tongue." I will subjoin
the words, because they are very remarkable : TOVTO Trepl rwv ev
ayvoovfjiei r} TO? CIKOVOVGI Tas
brav yap ayvcocrra fi rols Trapovori TO. pruaara Ttjs
[* " I grant they cannot say Ainen* to the blessing or thanksgiving of
the priest so well as if they understood the Latin tongue perfectly." Apud
Jewel, ut supra, p. 318.]
XVIII.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 265
TOV
In which words Basil distinctly affirms, that no benefit whatever can
redound to the people from prayers which they do not understand.
So Augustine, Zte Genesi ad Liter. Lib. xn. c. 8. " No one,"
says he, " is edified by hearing what he does not understand 3 ."
Therefore from words not understood no fruit follows ; and hence
it is manifest, that all their prayers are unfruitful and odious
to God.
But here the Jesuit urges us with many allegations to prove
that prayers, although not understood, are nevertheless useful to us.
These we must examine severally. First, he says, that the figures
and ceremonies of the old law were useful to the Jewish people,
although they did not understand them. I answer : In the first
place, let the Jesuit produce any such express command of God for
having prayers in a tongue not understood as the Jews had for
those ceremonies. Secondly, although the Jews did not understand
the figures and ceremonies of the law so clearly as we now under
stand them, yet they were not wholly ignorant of them ; and there
were Levites from whom they could easily learn the whole design
of their ceremonies, so as to understand it.
The Jesuit s second objection is taken from Augustine, de
Baptism, contra Donat. Lib. vi. c. 25 4 , where he says that those
prayers, which have something heretical mingled with them, may
yet be profitable to one who recites them in simplicity, not know
ing what he says, and supposing that he prays rightly : whence
the Jesuit infers that still more may good and holy prayers be
beneficial to the people, although the people do not understand
them. I answer : In the first place, we are not obliged to say
anything now of those prayers which the church of Rome is wont
to use ; for many heretical matters might be pointed out in them.
Secondly, Augustine does not speak of such prayers as are made
in an unknown tongue, but of those in which something heretical
is found mixed, which however is not perceived by those who use
the prayers. This, he says, will be no way prejudicial to them,
provided their intentions be pure; because, as he expresses it,
"the affection of the suppliant overcomes the fault of the prayer 5 ."
But what is this to the present question ?
[ 2 p. 641. B. T. n. Opp. Paris. 1618.]
[3 Nemo sedificatur audiendo quod non intelligit. T. in. p. 302.]
[ 4 Augustin. Opp. T. ix. p. 176.]
[ 3 Quia plerumque precis vitium superat affectus precantis.]
266 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cil.
The third objection of the Jesuit is taken from Origen s
twentieth Homily upon Joshua : " We often, indeed, do not un
derstand what we utter, yet the Virtues understand it 1 ." So,
says the Jesuit, though the people do not understand the prayers
which the priest utters, yet the Virtues understand them. I an
swer : Origen, in that place, does not speak of prayers, but of the
reading of the scriptures ; where he meets an objection which the
laity are accustomed to make : the scriptures are difficult, and
transcend our comprehension; therefore we need not read them.
Now, although (says Origen) we often do not understand what
we read, yet the Virtues understand it.
The Jesuit s fourth objection is to this effect : If the people
should use no prayers which they do not understand, then they
should never recite the Psalms and the Prophets. I answer : The
case of scripture is different from that of prayer. We must peruse
the whole scripture, although we are not masters of its meaning, in
order that we may, in the first place, understand the words, and
then from the words be able to proceed to the sense. But we
should only pray what we know ; because prayer is a colloquy with
God, and springs from our understanding. For we ought to know
what we say, and not merely, as the Jesuit pretends, know that
what we do appertains to the honour of God. Secondly, the
reason why we understand so little when we read, is to be found
in our own fault, and not in any obscurity of scripture.
The Jesuit s fifth and last objection is taken from St Antony,
as reported by Cassian, who says that prayer is then perfect when
the mind is so affected, while we pray, as not itself to understand
its own words. I answer : I wonder how this, be it what it may,
can be made to serve the cause in hand. For Antony does not
say that we should pray in an unknown tongue ; but that, when
we pray, we should not fix our attention on the words, but have
the mind absorbed, as it were, in divine meditation, and occupied
in thoughts about the things rather than the words. If the feelings
[! The Greek is preserved in the Philocalia, c. 12, p. 40, ed. Spencer.
Ei(n yap rives dwdfj-fis Iv ijfuv, a&gt;v al p.ev Kpfirrovcs dia TOVTUV r&v olovel eVopScai/
rpefpovrai, vvyyevels ov(rai avTais, KCU, r/fj-wv prj voovvrwv, eiceivas ras ftvvd/jicis,
voova-as ra Aryd/zem, dwarcorepas eV r\}u.v yivea-dai. The whole chapter is a very
curious discourse, in which Origen suggests that the mere words of scripture
may have a beneficial effect, after the manner of a spell, upon the man who
reads them, through certain spiritual powers which he supposes to be in
intimate contact with our souls. The same passage is to be found in
Huetius Origen, T. I. p. 27. C.]
XVIII.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 267
be sincere, we need not doubt but that the Holy Spirit will suggest
and dictate words to us, and guide us in our prayers.
Thus then what this argument of the apostle s proves remains
unshaken, that all prayers made in an unknown tongue are un
fruitful.
The second general argument of the apostle is taken from those
words which are contained in ver. 11 : " If I know not the meaning
of the voice, I shall be to him that speaketh a barbarian, and he
that speaketh shall be a barbarian to me." Therefore, if the
minister shall pray in an unknown tongue, he and the congregation
shall be barbarians to each other. Now this should not be in the
church, that the minister should be a barbarian to the people, or
the people to the minister. Therefore, the minister ought not to
pray in an unknown tongue. The Jesuit does not touch this argu
ment. The Rhemists pretend that the apostle does not here mean
the three learned languages, that is, the Hebrew, Greek, and
Latin, but others. They contend, therefore, that not he who
speaks Latin, when the people do not understand it, is a barbarian ;
but he who speaks English, French, Spanish, or any vulgar tongue
which is not understood by the audience. I answer, that the
apostle speaks in general of all languages, which the people do not
understand. " If I speak in a tongue/ says he, that is, in an un
known tongue, whatever it be. For those who speak with the
greatest purity and elegance 5 if they speak not what the people
understand, are barbarians to the people. Even Cicero himself or
Demosthenes shall be barbarians, if they harangue the people in an
unknown tongue which the people do not understand, however
sublimely they may discourse. Thus also, if the people know not
the Latin tongue, whoever uses it shall be a barbarian to them,
since they are not able to judge of it. The poet Ovid, when
banished to Pontus, says of himself, Trist. Lib. v. Eleg. II 2 :
Barbaras hie ego sum, quia non intelligor ulli.
Anacharsis, when an Athenian reproachfully called him a barbarian,
is said to have replied : " And ye Athenians are barbarians to the
Scythians :" e/uol iravTes EXX^i es crKvOi^ovcri. So Theodoret,
Therapeut. Orat. Lib. v. ; in which same place he observes that this
is what St Paul says, " I shall be to him that speaketh a barbarian 3 ."
Though men were to talk Attic, yet Anacharsis truly pronounces
[ 2 Trist. Lib. v. Eleg. x. 36.]
[ 3 ToOro yap drf^i/wy eotKe rots eipT/^ei/ois VTTO rov ^pcrepov O-KVTOTO^OV K.r.X.
p. 81. 1. 53. ed. Sylburg. 1592.]
268 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
them barbarians to the Scythians, because the Scythians know-
nothing of the Attic tongue. And Cicero, in the fifth book of his
Tusculan Questions says : " In those languages which we understand
not, we are just the same as deaf 1 . * If deaf, then certainly it is
not too much to say barbarians. Chrysostom interprets this pas
sage in precisely the same way, and says that the word barbarian
is used "not in reference to the nature of the speech, but with
reference to our ignorance 2 ." And so also CEcumenius. But, to
silence our Rhemists with the testimony of papists, Catharinus writes
thus upon the place : " He is here called a barbarian, whose tongue
is so diverse that he cannot be understood : for whoever is not
understood is a barbarian to the auditor 3 ." Then he produces the
verse of Ovid which we cited just now. He determines, therefore,
that the popish priests are barbarians to the people, however they
speak Latin. How well they speak it, makes no difference in this
case. Certainly they do not speak better Latin than Ovid, who yet
says that he was a barbarian to the people of Pontus. Now we
have said enough upon this place of the apostle against the Jesuit
and the Rhemists.
Next comes our SECOND argument, which is taken from other
words of the apostle in this same chapter. All things, says he,
1 Cor. xiv. 40, should be done in the church " decently and in
order," Kara TGL^LV. Now it is most grossly repugnant to good
order, that the minister should pray in an unknown tongue. For
so the people, though assembled for public prayer, are compelled to
pray, not publicly, but privately : and the custom hath prevailed in
the popish churches, that the people recite none but private prayers
in the church where public prayer is required. Yea, thus not only
the people, but the minister, who ought to offer up the public
prayers, utters only private ones : for the people, since they do
not understand the liturgy, do not pray publicly ; and, consequently,
the minister must needs pray alone by himself. For it does not
presently follow that prayers are public, because they are made in
a public place ; but those are public, which are made by the united
desires and wills of the whole church. Hence the minister should
[! Omnesque itidem nos in iis linguis quas non intelligimus surdi pro-
fecto sumus. c. xi. 1. Opp. Ciceron. T. vin. p. 559. ed. Lallemand. Paris-
1768. Barbou.]
[ 2 Ov Trapa TT}I/ (pixriv rrjs (putvrjs a\\a rrapa rrjv TJp.eTfpava. yvoiav. T. VI. p. 477.]
[ 3 Barbarus hoc in loco is dicitur, qui linguae differt varietate, ut non
intelligatur : quilibet enim qui non intelligitur barbarus est illi qui audit.
p. 193. Paris. 1566.]
XVIII.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 269
not pray in the church in an unknown tongue, because he, in so
doing, makes that private which ought to have been public, and
violates good order.
Our THIRD argument is to this effect : The papists themselves
know and concede that the Armenians, Egyptians, Muscovites and
Ethiopians perform their services in the vulgar tongue, and hold
their prayers in their own native languages. Why then, if they do
right, should not other churches do the same? But the Jesuit
objects, that they are either heretics or schismatics ; and that,
therefore, it is no great matter what they do. I answer, that
there are, indeed, in those churches many and great errors ; yet
neither more nor greater than in the church of Rome. These
O
churches are condemned by the papists, because they will not
submit to the Roman pontiff, or hold any such communion with
him. They are extensive churches, and perhaps more extensive
than the popish party, however they boast of their extension. All
these are ignorant of the Latin tongue, and use their own language
in their services; and in this matter we would rather resemble
them than the papists. The same is the case of the Indians, as
Eckius testifies in his common places : " We deny not that it is
permitted to the southern Indians to perform divine service in
their own language; which custom their clergy still observe 4 ."
Our FOURTH argument stands thus: .^Eneas Sylvius, in his book
on the origin of the Bohemians, c. XIIL, relates, that Cyril and
Methodius allowed the Moravians to use their own language in
their service 5 . I ask, therefore, why the same might not be
allowed to other churches ? or why other churches should not do
that which they know to be advantageous to them ? The Jesuit
objects, that Cyril and Methodius converted all the Moravians to
gether to the faith, and that there was just cause then for that
permission, because ministers could not be found competent to
perform the service in Latin. I answer, if this were needful at
first, then it follows that the service may be performed in the
[ 4 Non negamus Indis australibus permission ut in lingua sua rem divi-
nam facerent, quod clerus eorum hodie observat. c. xxxiv. Colon. 1532.]
[ 5 Referunt Cyrillum, cum Romse ageret, Romano pontifici supplicasse ut
Sclavorum lingua ejus gentis hominibus, quam baptizaverat, rem divinam
faciens uti posset. De qua re dum in sacro senatu disputaretur, essentque
non pauci contradictores, auditam vocem tanquam de coelo in hsec verba
missam : " Omnis spiritus laudet Dominum, et omnis lingua confiteatur ei."
Indeque datum Cyrillo indultum. JEn. Sylv. Hist. Bohem. c. xiii. p. 91. Basil.
1571.]
270 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
vulgar tongue ; which he had before said ought not to be done,
because the dignity of the sacred offices requires a more majestic
language. If this be a good reason, there can be no just cause for
performing them in the vernacular. What he adds about the lack
of ministers is an invention of his own.
Our FIFTH argument is taken from the authority of the emperor
Justinian; who (Lib. de cap. Eccl. c. 123) l orders that the minister
in the church should pronounce every thing with a clear voice, in
order that the people may hear and answer Amen. Harding 2 ,
Art. HI. Sect. 14, objects, firstly, that Justinian speaks of a " clear
voice," to let us know that it is vocal, and not mental, prayers that
are required. But I answer, the reason subjoined removes all
doubt on that score ; for he adds, that the people may hear, and
be inflamed to devotion, and answer Amen. Secondly, he objects
that this rule was only enjoined upon the Greeks, not on others.
I answer : Justinian was not merely emperor of Greece, but of all
Europe; and therefore he proposed his laws not only to the
prelates of Constantinople, but to those of Rome also, as is manifest
from that same chapter : " We order, therefore, the most blessed
archbishops and patriarchs, that is to say, of old Rome and of Con
stantinople 3 :" where expressly and by name he prescribes rules to
the bishop of Rome. Thirdly, he objects that these words are not
found in ancient copies. 1 answer, they are, however, found in all
the Greek copies, which are more to be trusted than the Latin
ones. And Gregory Holoander hath them also in his Latin ver
sion, who certainly faithfully translated the Greek text.
Our SIXTH and last argument is founded upon the authority and
testimony of the fathers. First, Basil the Great, in Ep. 63, to the
clergy of the church of Neocaosarsea, writes thus : "As the day
dawns, all together, as with one voice and one heart, offer a Psalm
of confession to the Lord, and each in his own words professes re
pentance." And lest any should suppose that this was spoken only
of the Greeks, he subjoins : " These constitutions are observed with
one accord by all the churches of God." There follows also in the
same place : " If on account of these you fly from us, you must fly
also the Egyptians, either Lybia, the Thebeans, the Palestinians,
the Arabians, the Phoenicians, the Syrians, and those who dwell
[i Justinian. Novell. Const. 137 (or 123) pp. 409, 10. Basil. 1561.]
[ 2 Ap. Jewel, p. 284, ut supra.]
[ 3 K\vo[j,V roivvv Toys fj-dKapiaTaTOVS apxicTTio-KOTTOVs Ka\
rian rrjs Trpeo-fivrfpas
XVIII.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 271
upon the Euphrates ; in a word, all who have any value for watch
ing, and prayer, and common psalmody;" nap ofs aypvTrviai,
KCU Trpoa ev ^aij KOI a\ KOIVO.I \J/aAjua&gt;ctcu T6Ti/u.r]VTai*. To the
same effect it is that this same Basil (Horn. 4. in Hexaem. at the
end) compares the church to the sea: for as (says he) the waves
roar when driven upon the coast, so the church " sends forth the
mingled sound of men and women and children in prayer to God 5 ."
We perceive, therefore, that it was the custom of the primitive
church for the whole people to combine their desires and assent
with the prayers of the minister, and not, as is with the papists
(amongst whom the priest alone performs his service in an unknown
tongue), to remain silent, or murmur their own indefinite private
prayers to themselves. Ambrose hath a similar sentence, Hexaem.
Lib. in. 6 Augustine, in his book de Magistro, c. 1, says that we
should pray with the heart, because the sacrifice of righteousness
is offered "in the temple of the mind and in the chambers of the
heart. Wherefore," says he, " there is no need of speech, that is,
of audible words, when we pray, unless, as in the case of the
priests, for the sake of denoting what we mean 7 ." But why then
must we speak ? Augustine answers, " not that God, but that
[ 4 HfJifpas ijdij viro\ap.nov(Tr]s^ rrdvrfs Koivf), as e cv&s o-Toparos KOI ptas
AcapStaff, TOV rrjs e ^o/zoXoyjyo-ecos ^aXfj.bv di/a&lt;pepovcri r&lt;5 Kupt cp, iSta eaurcov
fKaaros TO. p?7/zara rfjs p,eravoLas TroiovfJicvoi . . . eVi TOVTOIS \OITTOV el r^as O.TTO-
(frevyere, (pev^eo-Qe fj.ev AlyvTrriovs, &lt;peueo-$e 8e KCU Aiflvas dp(poTepovs, QrjPaiovs,
IIaX&lt;u(rriVou9, "Apaftas, QoiviKas, Supous, KOI TOVS Trpos roi ~Ev(ppdrfi KUTUKI-
&lt;rp,evovs, KOI Travras a.Traa.Tr\5&gt;s K.r.X. Basil. Opp. Paris. 1618. T. II. p. 844. A.
The clause, I Sia eavrwv, &c., should rather be rendered, "each making the
words of repentance his own:" but in the text the common Latin version
quoted by Whitaker is followed, "Suis quisque verbis resipiscentiam pro-
fitetur."]
[ 5 fi Se $aXacr(7a KaX) KOI eTratj/eri} rw f&lt;5, Trwy ov%\ KaXXiaw KK\r)(rias
ToiavTrjs avXXoyos, ev r] (rvp.[juyris rjx os &gt; L V TWOS Kv^aros tfiovi 7Tpo(r&lt;pfpo[Mvov,
dvdpwv Kol yvvaiKcov KCU vrjTriaiv Kara ras npos Qebv rjjjiav Berjo-ecs eWe/ATrerat ;
Ibid. T. I. p. 53. D.]
[ 6 Quid aliud ille concentus undarum, nisi quidam coricentus est plebis ?
Unde bene mari plerumque comparatur ecclesia, quse primo ingredientis
populi totis vestibulis undas vomit; deinde, in oratione totius plebis tan-
quam undis refluentibus stridet, cum responsoriis psalmorum, cantus viro-
rum, mulierum, virginum, parvulorum, consonas undarum fragor resultat.
Hexaem. m. cap. v. 23. Opp. Ambros. Paris. 1836. Pars I, p. 97.]
[? Quare non opus est locutione cum oramus, id est, sonantibus verbis,
nisi forte sicut sacerdotes faciunt, significandse mentis suse causa. T. I.
col. 542.]
272 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
men may hear us." But why ought men to hear us ? " In order,"
says Augustine, " that they, being moved to consent by our sug
gestion, may have their minds fixed upon God." But the people
cannot be thus fixed upon God by the suggestion of the priest, un
less they understand what is suggested by the priest. This consent
depends upon the suggestion; but a suggestion without being un
derstood is vain and futile. The same Augustine writes thus, in
his second exposition of Psalm xviii. : " Since we have prayed the
Lord to cleanse us from our secret faults, and spare his servants
from strange ones, we ought to understand what this is, so as to
sing with human reason, and not, as it were, with the voice of
birds. For blackbirds," says he, " and parrots, and crows and
magpies, and such like birds, are frequently taught by men to
utter sounds which they do not understand. But to sing with
the understanding is granted by the divine will, not to birds, but
to men 1 ." Thus Augustine ; whence we perceive that the people,
when they sing or pray what they do not understand (as is the
custom everywhere in the church of Rome) are more like black
birds, or parrots, or crows, or magpies, or such like birds, which
are taught to utter sounds which they understand not, than to men.
Thus Augustine deems it absurd and repugnant to the common
prudence of mankind, that the people should not understand their
prayers; which we see taking place everywhere in the popish sy
nagogues. And the same Augustine, upon Psalm Ixxxix. : " Blessed
is the people which understand the joyful sound. Let us hasten
to this blessedness ; let us understand the joyful sound, and not
pour it forth without understanding."
Chrysostom, in his 35th Horn, upon 1 Corinthians, says,
that he who speaks in an unknown tongue is not only "useless
(X/^" ros ) anc ^ a Barbarian 2 " to others, but even to himself, if he
do not understand what he says ; and that if he understand it, but
others not, small fruit can be gained by the rest from his words.
[ l Deprecati Dominum ut ab occultis mundet nos, et ab alienis parcat
servis suis, quid hoc sit intelligere debemus, ut humana ratione, non quasi
avium voce, cantemus. Nam et meruli et psittaci et corvi et picse et hujus-
modi volucres ssepe ab homiiiibus docentur sonare quod nesciunt. Scientes
autem cantare non avi, sed homini, divina vpluntate concessa est. T. iv.
c. 8. The reference is to the vulgate version of Psal. xix. 12, 13. Ab oc
cultis meis munda me, et ab alienis parce servo tuo : which follows the LXX.
UTTO aXAorpiW falaai rov 8ov\ov vov. They read D H-ID for
[2 Tom. x. p. 323.]
XVIII.] QUESTION THE SECOND. 273
Ambrose says upon 1 Cor. xlv. : " If ye come together for the
edification of the church, the things spoken should be such as the
auditors may understand 3 ." Jerome upon 1 Cor. xiv. says : "Every
speech is deemed barbarous that is not understood." The Latin,
therefore, is barbarous to those who understand it not, that is, to
the whole common people of all nations : and when the apostle
condemns a barbarous speech in the church, he plainly condemns
the use of the Latin tongue in the service. Cassiodorus upon Psalm
xlvi. : " When we raise a psalm, we should not only sing, but
understand it. For no one can do that wisely which he does not
understand 4 ." Isidore of Seville, de Eccles. Offic. Lib. i. c. 10 :
" It is fitting that when the psalms are sung, they should be sung
by all ; when prayers are made, they should be made by all ; when
the lesson is read, all keeping silence, it should equally be heard
by all 5 ." The fathers of the council of Aix, c. 132, say that, of
those who sing in the church " the mind should be in concord with
the voice;" and, in the following chapter, that such should read,
chant, and sing in the church, " as by the sweetness of their reading
and melody may both charm the learned and instruct the illi
terate 6 ." Jacobus Faber, in his Commentary upon 1 Cor. xiv.,
hath these words : " The greatest part of the world now, when
they pray, I know not whether they pray with the spirit, but
they certainly do not with the understanding ; for they pray in a
tongue which they do not understand. Yet Paul approves most
that the faithful should pray both with the spirit and the under
standing ; and those who pray so, as is the general practice, edify
themselves but little by the prayer, and cannot edify others at all
by their speech 7 ." And Cardinal Cajetan, as in many other things
[ 3 Si utique ad sedificandum ecclcsiam convcnitis, ea dici debent quse
intelligant audientes. Pseud- Ambros. in 1 Cor. xiv. p. 157. App. Opp.
T. ii. Par. 1690.]
[ 4 Adjecit, Psallite sapienter ; ut non solum cantantes, sed intelligentes
psallere debeamus. Nemo enim sapienter quicquam facit quod non in-
telligit. p. 157. T. n. Opp. Rothomag. 1679.]
[ 5 Oportet ut quando psallitur, psallatur ab omnibus ; cum oratur, oretur
ab omnibus; quando lectio legitur, facto silentio seque audiatur ab om
nibus. Opp. p. 393. Col. Agr. 1617.]
[ 6 Labbe, Concill. vii. 966.]
[? Maxima pars hominum cum nunc orat, nescio si spiritu, tamen mente
non orat : nam in lingua orat quam non intelligit. Attamen maxime
Paulus probat ut fideles pariter spiritu orent, et mente : et qui sic ut passim
[WHITAKER.]
274 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH. XVIII.
he blames the institutions of the Roman church, so indicates plainly
that he is not pleased with the strange language in the service,
in his Comment upon 1 Cor. xiv. For thus he speaks : " From
what Paul here teaches us we find, that it is more for the edification
of the church that the public prayers, which are said in the audience
of the people, should be said in the common language of the clergy
and people, than that they should be said in Latin 1 . 3 Here Catha-
rinus 2 could not restrain himself from pouring forth many insults
upon his own cardinal ; and he maintains that this is an invention of
Luther s, or rather of the devil speaking in Luther 2 : which yet is
plainly a doctrine and precept of the apostles, in spite of the blas
phemies of this foul papist. Nicolas de Lyra, in his Postil upon
1 Cor. xiv., writes frankly thus : " But if the people understand
the prayer or benediction of the priest, they are better turned
towards God, and more devoutly answer, Amen." And presently
he subjoins: "What profit does the simple and ignorant folk gain?
As much as to say, nothing or little ; because they know not how
to conform themselves to thee, the minister of the church, by an
swering, Amen. On which account in the primitive church the
benedictions and other common offices were performed in the vulgar
tongue 3 ."
And so we have arrived at the conclusion of the Second
Question.
solent orant, parum se oratione sedificant, et alios nequaquam sua sermone
edificare valent. Fol. 101. Paris. 1517.]
[1 Ex hac Pauli doctrina habetur, quod melius ad ecclesiee sedificationem
est orationes publicas, quse audiente populo dicuntur, dici lingua communi
clericis et populo, quam dici Latine. Fol. 158. 2. Paris. 1571.]
[ 2 Quse primo a Luthero, imo a diabolo in Luthero loquente, inventa est.
p. 57. Catharin. Annotat. in Cajet. Comm. Lugd. 1542.]
[ 3 Quod si populus intelligit orationem seu benedictionem sacerdotis,
melius reducitur in Deum, et devotius respondet Amen Quid proficit
populus simplex et non intelligens ? Quasi dicat, nihil, aut modicum ;
quod nescit se conformare tibi, qui es minister ecclesise, respondendo Amen.
Propter quod in primitiva ecclesia benedictiones et cetera communia fiebant
in vulgari. p. 55. 2. Biblia cum gloss, ord. et post. Lyr. T. vi. Venet. 1588.]
THE FIRST CONTROVERSY.
QUESTION III.
CONCERNING THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE.
CHAPTER I.
OF THE STATE OF THE QUESTION.
IN commencing this question, we must return to those words of
Christ, which are contained in John v. 39, epevvare ras ypcxpas,
" Search the scriptures." In these words Christ hath referred and
remitted us to the scriptures : whence it follows that they are de
serving of the greatest trust, dignity, and authority. The question,
therefore, between us and the papists is, whence they have received
such great authority, and what it is, and on what this whole weight
of such divine dignity and authority depends. The subject is diffi
cult and perplexed ; nor do I know whether there is any other
controversy between us of greater importance. Though desirous in
every question to draw the doctrine of our adversaries from the
decrees of the council of Trent, I am unable to do so in the present
case ; for the council of Trent hath made no decree or definition
upon this question. The opinion of the papists must, therefore, be
discovered from their books. The Jesuit does not treat this ques
tion in this place, but elsewhere in the controversy concerning
councils ; and even there but briefly and superficially. But, since
it appertains to the nature and efficacy of scripture, to know what
its authority is, I have judged it proper to be treated here.
It would be too troublesome and laborious to enumerate the
opinions of all the papists severally upon this matter, and to inquire
what every one may have written upon it. Those who are esteemed
the most skilful and the best learned, now deny that they make the
scripture inferior to the church ; for so Bellarmine and others openly
profess, and complain that they are treated injuriously by us in
this respect. But, that they make the authority of scripture de
pend upon the church, and so do in fact make the scripture inferior
182
276 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
to the church, and that we do them no injustice in attributing this
to them, will appear from the words of their own theologians, and
those not the meanest. Eckius, in his Enchiridion de Authorit.
Eccles. Respons. 3, says that " the church is more ancient than
the scriptures, and that the scripture is not authentic but by the
authority of the church 1 ." And that this answer is wonderfully
acceptable to the papists appears from the marginal note, where
this argument is styled " Achilles pro Catholicis." How well this
reason deserves to be considered Achillean, will appear hereafter.
The same author places this assertion amongst heretical proposi
tions, " The authority of scripture is greater than that of the
church," and affirms the contrary proposition to be catholic : which
agrees with the assertion so often repeated in the canon law, " The
church is above the scripture." Pighius, de Hierarch. Eccles. Lib.
i. c. 2, disputes against the scripturarians (as he calls us), main
taining that the authority of scripture cannot be defended without
the tradition of the church ; and affirms that the whole authority
of scripture, with regard to us, depends upon ecclesiastical tradition,
and that we cannot believe the scriptures upon any other grounds,
but because the church confirms it by its testimony. His express
words are these : " All the authority which the scripture now hath
with us, depends necessarily upon the authority of the church 2 ."
So, says he, it happens that the gospel of Mark, who was not an
apostle, is received, while that of Thomas, who was an apostle, is
not received. Hence also, he says, it hath come to pass that the
gospel of Luke, who had not seen Christ, is retained, while the
gospel of Nicodemus, who had seen Christ, is rejected. And he
pursues this discourse to a great length. One Hermann, a most
impudent papist, affirms that the scriptures are of no more avail
than ^Esop s fables, apart from the testimony of the church 3 . As
suredly this assertion is at once impudent and blasphemous. Yet,
[ J c. 1. p. 6. Antwerp. 1533.]
[ 2 Omnis quse mine apud nos est scripturarum auctoritas ab ecclesioe
auctoritate dependet necessario. Pigli. Hierar. Eccles. Assertio. p. 17. Col.
Agr. 1572.]
[ 3 Casaubon, Exercit. Baron. I. xxxiii. had, but doubtfully, attributed
this to Pighius : but in a MS. note preserved in Primate Marsh s library, at
St Sepulchre s, Dublin, he corrects himself thus : " Non est hie, sed quidam
Hermannus, ait Wittakerus in Prsefat. Controvers. 1. Qusest. 3. p. 314."
If a new edition of those Exercitations be ever printed, let not these MSS.
of that great man, which, with many other valuable records, we owe to the
diligence of Stillingfleet and the munificence of Marsh, be forgotten.]
I.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 277
when it was objected to them by Brentius in the Wittemberg Con
fession, it was defended as a pious speech by Hosius, de Authorit.
Script. Lib. HI. : where also he affirms that the scriptures would
have no great weight, except for the testimony of the church.
" In truth," says he, " unless the authority of the church had
taught us that this was canonical scripture, it would have very
slight weight with us 4 ." From this every one must see that the
opinion of the papists is, that the authority of the church is really
greater than that of scripture.
But other papists now begin to speak with somewhat greater
caution and accuracy. Cochlaeus, in his Reply to Bullinger, chap.
2, avails himself of a distinction. He says that the scriptures
are indeed in themselves firm, clear, perfect, and most worthy
of all credit, as the work of God ; but that, with regard to us,
they need the approval and commendation of the church, on ac
count of the depravity of our minds and the weakness of our
understandings. And this he confirms by the authority of Ari
stotle, who says, in his Metaphysics, that " our understanding is to
divine things as the eyes of owls to the light of the sun 5 ." So Canus,
in his Common Places, Lib. 11. c. 8, says that we cannot be certain
that the scriptures come from God, but by the testimony of the
church. So our countryman Stapleton explains this controversy
through almost his whole ninth book of Doctrinal Principles. In
the first chapter he examines the state of the question ; where he
says that the question is not, whether the scripture be in itself
sacred and divine, but how we come to know that it is sacred and
divine : and therefore he blames Calvin for stating the question
wrongly, when he says that the papists affirm, that it depends
upon the church what reverence is due to scripture. For (says
he) the scriptures are in themselves worthy of all reverence, but,
with regard to us, they would not by themselves have been held in
such honour. This, says he, is a very different thing from making
it depend upon the church, what books should be reckoned in the
canon of scripture. The one (he adds) relates to the reverence due
to scripture in itself; the other to the same reverence in respect to
us. But, I beseech you, what is the difference between these two
[ 4 Revera nisi nos ecclesise doceret auctoritas hanc scripturam csse ca-
nonicam, perexiguum apud nos pondus haberet. p. 269. Opp. Antw. 1571.]
[ 5 mo-TTfp yap /cat ra rtov WKTepidcw oppara irpbs TO (peyyos e^fi TO pfff
rip-cpay, ovTd) Koi TTJS ijp.eTepas ^VXTJS 6 vovs rrpbs ra TTJ (pvo-ci $ai&gt;epa&gt;rara
7rai/Tcoi&gt;. Mctaphys. Lib. ii. c. 1. Opp. T. II. p. 856, B. Paris. 1619.]
278 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
opinions, It depends upon the judgment of the church what rever
ence is due to scripture ; and, It depends upon the judgment of
the church what books are to be received into the canon ; since
that sacred scripture, to which divine reverence is due, is to be
found only in the canonical books ? The papists affirm the latter
opinion ; therefore, also the first. The same is the opinion of the
Jesuit, Controv. de Condi. Qusest. 2 ; where he says that the scrip
tures do not need the approbation of the church ; and that, when it
is said that the church approves them, it is only meant that it de
clares these scriptures to be canonical. To the same effect Andra-
dius also writes, Defens. Trid. Con. Lib. IIL, that the church does
not give to scripture its authority, but only declares to us how
great its authority is in itself. This opinion might appear tolerable,
that scripture is in itself a sacred and divine thing, but is not
recognised as such by us, except upon the testimony of the church.
But in the second book the same author speaks much more per
versely : " Nor is there in the books themselves, wherein the sacred
mysteries are written, any divinity to compel us by a sort of re
ligious awe to believe what they contain ; but the efficacy and
dignity of the church, which teaches us that those books are sacred,
and commends to us the faith and piety of the ancient fathers, are
such that no one can oppose them without the deepest brand of
impiety 1 ." Canisius, in his Catechism, c. 3, sect. 16, says that the
authority of the church is necessary to us, firstly, in order that
" we may certainly distinguish the true and canonical scriptures
from the spurious 2 ." They mean, then, that the scripture depends
upon the church, not in itself, but in respect of us.
And now we are well nigh in possession of the true state of
the question, which is itself no slight advantage : for they speak in
so perplexed, obscure, and ambiguous a manner, that one cannot
easily understand what it is they mean. Now these assertions
might seem not to deserve any severe reprehension, that the
scripture hath authority in itself, but that it cannot be certain to
us except through the church. But we shall presently shew where
the true steps and turning point of the controversy lie.
[ x JSFeque enim in ipsis libris, quibus sacra mysteria scripta sunt, quic-
quam inest divinitatis, quse nos ad credendum quse illis continentur religione
aliqua constringat : sed ecclesise, quse codices illos sacros esse docet et
antiquorum patrum fidem et pietatem commendat, tanta est vis et am-
plitudo, ut illis nemo sine gravissima impietatis nota possit repugnare.]
[ 2 Opus Catech. p. 156. Colon. 1577.]
I.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 279
Meanwhile let us see what they mean by this word, the "church."
Now, under the name of the church the papists understand not only
that church which was in the times of the apostles (for Thomas of
Walden is blamed on that account by Canus, Loc. Comm. Lib. n.
c. 8, and also by Stapleton, Doctrin. Princip. Lib. ix. c. 12, 13),
but the succeeding, and therefore the present church ; yet not the
whole people, but the pastors only. Canus, when he handles this
question, understands by the church sometimes the pastors, some
times councils, sometimes the Roman pontiff. Stapleton, Lib. ix.
c. 1, applies this distinction : The church, as that term denotes the
rulers and pastors of the faithful people, not only reveres the scrip
ture, but also by its testimony commends, delivers down, and con
signs it, that is to say, with reference to the people subject to
them : but, as the church denotes the people or the pastors, as
members and private persons, it only reveres the scripture. And
when the church consigns the scripture, it "does not make it au
thentic from being doubtful absolutely, but only in respect of us,
nor does it make it authentic absolutely, but only in respect of us."
Hence we see what they understand by the term the church, and
how they determine that the scripture is consigned and approved
by the church.
We will now briefly explain our own opinion upon this matter.
It does not appear to be a great controversy, and yet it is the
greatest. In the first place, we do not deny that it appertains to
the church to approve, acknowledge, receive, promulge, commend
the scriptures to all its members ; and we say that this testi
mony is true, and should be received by all. We do not, there
fore, as the papists falsely say of us, refuse the testimony of the
church, but embrace it. But we deny that we believe the scrip
tures solely on account of this commendation of them by the church.
For we say that there is a more certain and illustrious testimony,
whereby we are persuaded of the sacred character of these books,
that is to say, the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit, without
which the commendation of the church would have with us no
weight or moment. The papists, therefore, are unjust to us, when
they affirm that we reject and make no account of the authority of
the church. For we gladly receive the testimony of the church,
and admit its authority ; but we affirm that there is a far different,
more certain, true, and august testimony than that of the church.
The sum of our opinion is, that the scripture is avroirujro^, that
is, hath all its authority and credit from itself; is to be acknow-
280 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
ledged, is to be received, not only because the church hath so deter
mined and commanded, but because it comes from God ; and that
we certainly know that it comes from God, not by the church, but by
the Holy Ghost. Now by the church we understand not, as they do,
the pastors, bishops, councils, pope ; but the whole multitude of the
faithful. For this whole multitude hath learned from the Holy Spirit
that this scripture is sacred, that these books are divine. This per
suasion the Holy Spirit hath sealed in the minds of all the faithful.
The state of the controversy, therefore, is this : Whether we
should believe that these scriptures which we now have are sacred
and canonical merely on account of the church s testimony, or rather
on account of the internal persuasion of the Holy Spirit ; which, as
it makes the scripture canonical and authentic in itself, makes it
also to appear such to us, and without which the testimony of the
church is dumb and inefficacious.
CHAPTER II.
HOW MUCH AUTHORITY, WITH RESPECT TO SCRIPTURE, IS AT
TRIBUTED BY THE PAPISTS AND BY US TO THE CHURCH.
IT remains now that we proceed to the arguments of the
papists. But first, we must explain what authority, both in their
opinion and in ours, the church exercises with respect to scripture.
Of all the popish authors, Stapleton hath treated this question
with the greatest acuteness : we shall, therefore, examine him specially
in this debate. He, Doctr. Princip. Lib. ix. cap. 2, makes use of a
distinction which he hath taken from Cochlaeus. He says, as we
have touched before, that the scripture must be considered under a
twofold aspect, in itself, and relatively to us. In itself, and of
itself, he says that it is always sacred on account of its author,
" whether it be received by the church, or whether it be not
received." For though, says he, the church can never reject the
scripture, because it comes from God ; yet it may sometimes not
receive some part of scripture. But, I pray you, what is the
difference between not receiving and rejecting ? Absolutely none.
He who does not receive God rejects him ; and so the church
plainly rejected those scriptures which formerly it did not receive.
For I would fain know why it did not receive them. Certainly
the reason was, because it judged them spurious, wherein it appears
II.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 281
it might be mistaken. But Stapleton goes on to say, that the
church, exercising its just privilege, might sometimes not receive
some books ; and he shews that some doctrines are now received by
the later churches which were not received formerly. These if
any one were now to reject, after the church hath received them,
he would, says Stapleton, be most justly called and deemed a
heretic. But I affirm, that no doctrines have now become matters
of faith, which were not received by the ancient church in the times
of the apostles ; so that all those churches must have erred which
formerly did not receive the same. He presses us, however, with
particular instances, and produces certain points which he says
were not received at first : as for instance, the doctrine of the pro
cession of the Holy Ghost, of the creation of souls immediately by
God, of the unlawfulness of repeating heretical baptism : but I
affirm once more, that all these doctrines had whatever force they
now have at all times, so as that if it be now heretical not to assent
to them, it must have been always equally heretical ; for the
doctrine of scripture never changes in the gospel, but is always
equally necessary. Everything that Stapleton adduces, in order to
shew that those books which were formerly not received by the
church, ought now to be received solely on account of the external
testimony of the church, may be reduced to the argument stated
above. He subjoins that the authority of the church respects the
scriptures only materially ; which he explains to mean, that it is
fitting we should obey the judgment of the church, and, on account
of its judgment, receive the scripture as sacred. But it would not,
says he, be fitting that the truth of scripture, or of other objects of
faith, should so depend upon the judgment of the church, as that
they should only be true on condition of the church s approving them ;
but now, says he, the church does not make them true in themselves,
but only causes them to be believed as true. Mark ye. The scrip
ture is true in itself, and all the doctrines of scripture are true; but
they could not appear true to us, we could not believe the scriptures,
unless the church approved the scripture and the doctrines of scrip
ture. Although these things be true in themselves, yet they would
not have seemed true to us, they would not have been believed, or
(to use Stapleton s expression) received by us, unless on account of
the church s approbation. This is the whole mystery of iniquity.
We determine far otherwise, and with far greater truth : for we
resolutely deny that we are indebted to the church for this that the
scriptures are true even in respect to us ; but we say that our
282 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
belief of their truth is produced by the testimony and suggestion
of the Holy Spirit. It was Cochlaeus who taught Stapleton this
blasphemy, in his second book upon the authority of the church
and scripture ; where he collects many places of scripture, which
may seem incredible to man, and to which he maintains that human
frailty could not assent, if they were not confirmed by the authority
of the church. Such is the account of David s innumerable army,
which he shews from the smallness of that country to be a thing
which no one would think credible. For he says that the land of
Judaaa could never have nourished and supported such a vast
number of men ; and demonstrates this from a comparison of that
region with other countries, shewing that so many thousand men
were never enrolled in the whole Roman republic, which was much
larger than Judsea. How, says he, can the human intellect assent
to these things, when nothing of the kind is read in any other
historians, cosmographers, philosophers, orators, nay, even poets?
"For what fable of the poets" (these are his words) "ever ascribed
such a number of warriors to one people, and that not the whole
of the people 1 ?" He brings in also the number of talents which
David is said to have left to his son Solomon for the building of
the temple. For this, he maintains, may deservedly seem incredible,
inasmuch as David was very poor ; which he endeavours to prove
from the circumstance that he spent so much upon his courtiers,
sons, wives, and concubines which he had in great numbers, and
also in the wars, which lasted almost all through his life. Whence,
he asks, came such wealth to David as neither Croesus, nor Alex
ander, nor Augustus, ever possessed? He is profusely prodigal
of words and eloquence upon this subject, and hath produced many
passages of this kind, which shame and weariness alike forbid me
to enumerate. At the close he concludes thus, (and a noble con
clusion it is,) that all these things cannot otherwise be believed, but
because the church believes them, and hath required them to be
believed. Certainly I know not what is, if this be not, impudence.
Cannot then these things be believed on any other ground, but
because the church hath delivered them, and would have them to
be believed? What then shall we say of the almost infinite
number of other such things which are contained in scripture ; of
the passage of the Israelites through the sea ; of the manna ; of
the quails by which the people of Israel were fed in the desert so
[! Quse enim fabula poetarum uni populo nee toti tantuin numerum
ascripsit fortium virorum ?J
II.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 283
richly ; of all Christ s miracles ? What of the whole scheme of
our redemption, the incarnation, death, resurrection, ascension, of
Christ ? What must we determine of all these ? Can these too
be believed as true upon no other reason or testimony, but because
the church hath so determined? This is monstrous blasphemy,
and worthy of a Cochlseus and a Stapleton ! We believe these
things, and have no doubt of their truth, not merely because the
church hath so determined, but on account of the authority of the
word of God and of the Holy Spirit. All therefore that the
papists allege tends substantially to make the whole authority of
scripture depend upon the authority of the church, which never
theless they deny : yet that this is the real meaning of their
opinion is manifest from what hath been already said. Stapleton
subjoins, that it should not appear to us more unbecoming that the
church should commend the scripture and bear testimony to it,
than it was unbecoming that John the Baptist should bear witness
to Christ, and the gospel should be written by men. Now we
confess that the church commends the scripture by its testimony,
and that this is the illustrious office of the church ; but it is a very
different matter to say that we could not otherwise believe the
scriptures, unless on account of this judgment and testimony of the
church. We concede the former ; the latter we resolutely deny,
and that with the greatest detestation.
You have heard how much these men attribute to the church.
It follows now that we consider how much ought really to be
attributed to it. We do not indeed ascribe as much to the church
as they do (for we could not do so lawfully) ; but yet we recognise
distinguished offices which the church hath to perform in respect
of scripture, and which may be reduced to four heads. First, the
church is the witness and guardian of the sacred writings, and
discharges, in this respect, as it were the function of a notary.
In guardians the greatest fidelity is required: but no one would
say that records were believed merely on the notary s authority,
but on account of their own trustworthiness. So the church ought
carefully to guard the scriptures, and yet we do not repose credit
in the scriptures merely on account of the testimony and authority
of the church. The second office of the church is, to distinguish
and discern the true, sincere, and genuine scriptures from the
spurious, false, and supposititious. Wherein it discharges the office
of a champion ; and for the performance of this function it hath
the Spirit of Christ to enable it to distinguish the true from the
284 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
false : it knows the voice of the spouse ; it is endued with the
highest prudence, and is able to try the spirits. The goldsmith
with his scales and touchstone can distinguish gold from copper
and other metals ; wherein he does not make gold, even in respect
of us, but only indicates what is gold, so that we the more easily
trust it. Or, if a different illustration be required, another skilful
person informs me that a coin, which I do not recognise as such,
is good and lawful money : and I, being so instructed, acquiesce ;
but it is on account of the matter and the form impressed upon
the coin that I perceive it to be sterling and royal money. In
like manner, the church acknowledges the scriptures, and de
clares them to be divine: we, admonished and stirred up by the
church, perceive the matter to be so indeed. The third office
of the church is to publish, set forth, preach, and promulgate the
scriptures; wherein it discharges the function of a herald, who
ought to pronounce with a loud voice the decrees and edicts of the
king, to omit nothing, to add nothing of his own. Chrysostom, in
his first Homily upon the Epistle to Titus, pursues this similitude :
" As," says he, " the herald makes his proclamation in the theatre
in the presence of all, so also we 1 ." Where he shews that the duty
of the herald is to publish whatever is consigned to him, to add
nothing of his own, and to keep back no part of his commission.
Now the people believes and obeys the edict of the magistrates on
its own account, not because of the voice of the crier. The fourth
office of the church is to expound and interpret the scriptures;
wherein its function is that of an interpreter. Here it should in
troduce no fictions of its own, but explain the scriptures by the
scriptures. Such are the offices, and those surely in the highest
degree great and dignified, which we gladly allow to belong to
the church : from which, nevertheless, it will by no means follow,
that we assent to the scriptures solely on account of the church s
authority, which is the point that the papists affirm and maintain.
From what hath been said it is sufficiently evident what are
the offices of the church in respect of scripture, both in our opinion
and in that of the papists.
[! ooo-Trep 6 Kripvt- TTCIVTWV irapovTaiv fv ru&gt; 6f rpw KTjpvrTfi, ovrco KOI
Opp. T. IV. p. 383.]
III.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 285
CHAPTER III.
WHEREIN THE FIRST ARGUMENT OF OUR OPPONENTS IS CONFUTED.
WE have drawn the true state of this question from the books
of the papists themselves. It follows now that we should approach
their arguments, which they themselves deem so exceeding strong
as to leave us no capacity to resist them. But we, with God s help,
shall easily (as I hope) confute them all. Stapleton hath borrowed
much from Canus, and explicated his arguments at greater length.
With him therefore we will engage, as well because he is our fellow-
countryman, as because he seems to have handled this subject most
acutely and accurately of them all. He bestows his whole ninth
book upon this question, and in the fourth chapter of that book
commences his reasoning against us in this manner : To have a
certain canon of scripture is most necessary to faith and religion.
But without the authority of the church it is impossible to have
a certain canon of scripture ; since it cannot be clear and certain
to us what book is legitimate, what supposititious, unless the church
teach us. Therefore, &c. I answer, as to the major : Firstly,
the major is true, if he mean books properly canonical, which have
been always received by the church ; for these the church ought
always to acknowledge for canonical : although it be certain that
many flourishing churches formerly in several places had doubts
for a time concerning many of the books, as appears from antiquity.
Secondly, therefore, it is not absolutely, and in the case of each
particular person, necessary for faith and salvation to know what
books are canonical. For many can have faith and obtain sal
vation, who do not hold the full number of the canonical books.
Stapleton proves his assumption, namely, that the canon of scrip
ture can no otherwise be certainly known to us but by the authority
of the church, by three arguments. The first is this : There is
no authority more certain than that of the church. But there is
need of the most certain authority, that the trustworthiness of
scripture may be ascertained, and all doubt removed from the
conscience concerning the canon of scripture. Therefore, &c. I
answer, that it is false to say, as he does, that no authority is
more certain than that of the church : it is a mere begging of the
question. For greater and more certain is the authority of God,
of the scriptures themselves, and of the Holy Spirit, by whose
286 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH;
testimony the truth of scripture is sealed in our minds, and with
out which all other testimonies are utterly devoid of strength.
But God (says he) teaches us through the church, and by no other
medium: therefore there is no more certain authority than that
of the church. I answer : His own words prove that God s au
thority is more certain. For the authority of him who teaches
is greater than that of him through whom one is taught. God
teaches us through the church : therefore the authority of God
is greater than that of the church. I am surprised that Stapleton
should have been so stupid as not to see that, if it be God who
teaches through the church, the authority of God must be greater
than that of the church. He confesses that we are taught by God
through the church : therefore, since God is the prime and highest
teacher, it is evident that his authority and trustworthiness is the
chief. For the church is only his minister, subserves him in giving
instruction, and expounds his commands. The weakness of his
reasoning will easily appear from a parallel instance. A prince
publishes his law and edict by a herald, and explains and expounds
by his lawyers the meaning of the law and the force of the edict.
Does it therefore follow that there is no more certain authority
than that of the herald and the lawyers ? By no means. For it
is manifest that the authority of the law and of the prince is greater
than that of the herald or the interpreter. But (says he) nothing
is more certain than God s teaching : therefore nothing more
certain than the authority of the church, since God teaches through
the church. Now where is the consequence of this ? We confess
indeed that nothing is more certain than God s teaching, and this
is the very thing which we maintain, and hence conclude that the
authority of the church is not the highest : but his consequence
meanwhile is weak, until he prove that God and the church are
the same thing. It will more correctly follow from this reasoning,
that nothing is more certain than the word of God and the scrip
tures, because it is God who addresses us in his word, and teaches
us through his word ; whereas the church discharges merely a
ministerial function. Therefore we are not bound absolutely to
receive whatever the church may teach us, but only whatever it
proves itself to have been commanded by God to teach us, and
with divine authority.
The second argument wherewith Stapleton confirms the as
sumption of the preceding syllogism is this : All other mediums
that can be attempted are insufficient without making recourse to
III.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 287
the judgment of the church ; and then he enumerates the mediums
upon which we rely. For as to the style (says he) and phrase
ology, and other mediums, by which the scripture is usually dis
tinguished, these the church knows best, and is best able to judge
aright. Therefore, &c. I answer : If by the church he understand
the pope and the bishops (as the papists always do), I deny that
they are best able to distinguish the style and phraseology of scrip
ture ; I deny that this is the true church of Christ which knows
the voice of Christ. But if he speak of the true church, this
fallacy is that called ignoratio elenchi, and the state of the question
is changed. For before this he had been speaking of the external
judgment of scripture, which perhaps may properly belong to the
bishops : but here he understands the internal judgment, which is
not only proper to the pastors, but common to all Christians : for
all Christ s sheep know his voice, and are internally persuaded of
the truth of scripture. Secondly, although we should concede all
this to him, yet where will be the coherence of his reasoning,
The church knows best the voice of the spouse, and the style and
phraseology of scripture ; therefore its authority is the most cer
tain ? For what though the church know ? What is that to me ?
Are these things therefore known and certain to me? For the
real question is, how I can know it best ? Although the church
know ever so well the voice of its spouse, and the style and
phraseology of scripture, it hath that knowledge to itself, not to
me; and by whatever means it hath gained that knowledge,
why should I be able to gain it also by the same ? Thirdly, from
what he says, the contrary of his conclusion might much more
correctly be inferred, namely, that the authority of scripture is
more certain than that of the church. For if the authority of
the church be therefore most certain, because it knows best the
style of scripture, and judges by the style of scripture, it is plain
that the authority of scripture itself is far more certain, since it
indicates itself to the church by its style. But I (you will say)
should not know that this was the voice of the spouse, that this
was the style of scripture, unless the church were to teach me.
This, indeed, is untrue, since it can be known that this is the
voice of Christ and true and genuine scripture without the judg
ment of the church, as shall hereafter be shewn more at large.
But, although we were to grant him this, that it could not be
known otherwise than through the church, that these were the
scriptures, yet even so the argument would be inconsequential.
288 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
For many would not have known Christ, if John had not taught
them, pointed him out, and exclaimed, " Behold the Lamb of God,
who taketh away the sin of the world ! " Was then the authority
of John more certain than that of Christ ? By no means. For
John brought many to Christ, who afterwards believed much more
on account of Christ himself, than on account of the preaching and
testimony of John. So many through means of the church believe
these to be the scriptures, who afterwards believe still more firmly,
being persuaded by the scriptures themselves. Besides, Paul and
Peter and the other apostles best knew the voice of Christ ; must
therefore their authority be rated higher than that of Christ him
self ? Far from it. It does not therefore follow that because the
church knows very well the voice of Christ, the authority of the
church is greater than that of Christ. But as to his pretence that
because the church delivers the rule of faith, it must therefore be
the correctest judge of that rule ; we must observe that the terms
deliver and judge are ambiguous. The church does indeed deliver
that rule, not as its author, but as a witness, and an admonisher,
and a minister : it judges also when instructed by the Holy
Spirit. But may I therefore conclude, that I cannot be certain
of this rule, but barely by the testimony of the church? It is
a mere fallacy of the accident. There is no consequence in this
reasoning : I can be led by the church s voice to the rule of faith ;
therefore I can have no more certain judgment than that of the
church.
In the third place, Stapleton proves the fore-mentioned assump
tion thus : Scripture (says he) cannot be proved by scripture :
therefore it must be proved by the church ; and consequently the
authority of the church is greater than that of scripture. The an
tecedent is thus established. Should any one, he says, deny Paul s
epistles to be canonical, it cannot be proved either from the old
Testament, or from the gospel, because there is nowhere any men
tion there made of them. Then he goes on to say that neither the
whole scripture, nor any part of it, can be proved from scripture
itself, because all proof is drawn from things better known than the
thing to be proved. Therefore (says he) to one who denies or
knows not either the whole scripture or any part of it, nothing can
be proved from scripture itself. But here, according to him, the
church comes to our help in both cases. For, should any one
deny a part of scripture, the church persuades him to receive
these books upon the same ground as he hath received the others :
III.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 289
he who is ignorant of the whole scripture, it persuades to accept
the scripture in the same way as he hath accepted Christ.
I answer, This is a fine way of persuading a man to receive
these books upon the same grounds as he hath received the others!
But the question is, how he was first induced to receive those
others ? Was it by the authority of the church ? Why then did
he not receive all upon the faith of the same judgment ? For the
church will have us receive the whole scripture as well as certain
parts of it. Stapleton does not meet this scruple. Besides, it is
manifestly absurd to suppose the possibility of a man s believing in
Christ, who denies and rejects the whole scripture : this certainly is
quite impossible. But now let us come to the examination of the
argument itself, to which I return a twofold answer. First, I affirm
that the scripture can be understood, perceived, known and proved
from scripture. Secondly, I say that if it cannot be perceived and
proved in this way, still less can it be proved by the church.
The first will be evident from the following considerations.
Scripture hath for its author God himself; from whom it first pro
ceeded and came forth. Therefore, the authority of scripture may
be proved from the author himself, since the authority of God him
self shines forth in it. 2 Tim. iii. 16, the whole scripture is called
OeoTTvevaros. In 2 Pet. i. 12, we are told, " Prophecy in old
time came not by the will of men, but holy men of God spake as
they were moved by the Holy Ghost," VTTO TrvevjuaTos dyiov
And, verse 19, the word of prophecy is called /3e-
E^o^ey, says the apostle, fiefiaiorepov TOV 7rpo(pr]Ti-
KOV \6yov. That word /3e/3a torero? is most pertinent to the mat
ter in hand ; for it signifies that the scripture is endued with the
firmest and highest authority. In the same place it is compared to
a lamp shining in a dark place, \vyixp (paivovn ev av^rjpw TOTTW.
It hath therefore light in itself, and such light as we may see in
the darkness. But if the opinion of our opponents were correct,
this light should be in the church, not in the scriptures. David
indicates the same thing in the 14th octonary of Psalm cxix., at the
beginning, where he says, " Thy word is a lamp to my feet, and a
light to my path :" therefore the scripture hath the clearest light
in itself. On this account it is frequently styled the testimony.
From these and similar passages, we reason thus : There is the
greatest perspicuity and light in the scriptures : therefore the scrip
ture may be understood by the scripture, if one only have eyes to
perceive this light. As the brightest light appears in the sun, so
19
LWHITAKER.]
290 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
the greatest splendour of divinity shines forth in the word of God.
The blind cannot perceive even the light of the sun ; nor can they
distinguish the splendour of the scriptures, whose minds are not
divinely illuminated. But those who have eyes of faith can behold
this light. Besides, if we recognise men when they speak, why
should we not also hear and recognise God speaking in his word ?
For what need is there that another should teach that this is the
voice of somebody, when I recognise it myself; or should inform
me that my friend speaks, when I myself hear and understand him
speaking ?
But they object that we cannot recognise the voice of God,
because we do not hear God speaking. This I deny. For those
who have the Holy Spirit, are taught of God : these can recog
nise the voice of God as much as any one can recognise a friend,
with whom he hath long and familiarly lived, by his voice. Nay,
they can even hear God. For so Augustine (Ep. m.), "God ad
dresses us every day. He speaks to the heart of every one of
us 1 ." If we do not understand, the reason is because we have not
the Spirit, by which our hearts should be enlightened. With
respect to us, therefore, the authority of the scripture depends
upon, and is made clear by, the internal witness of the Holy Spirit;
without which, though you were to hear a thousand times that this
is the word of God, yet you could never believe in such a manner
as to acquiesce with an entire assent. Besides, the papists should
tell us whether or no this is really the word of God which we pos
sess. Now that it is in itself the word of God, they do not deny,
but they say that we cannot be certain of it without the help of
the church : they confess that the voice of God sounds in our ears ;
but they say that we cannot believe it, except upon account of the
church s approbation. But now, if it be the word of God which we
hear, it must needs have a divine authority of itself, and should be
believed by itself and for itself. Otherwise we should ascribe more
to the church than to God, if we did not believe him except for the
sake of the church. God speaks in the prophets, and through the
prophets : whence we find often used by them such phrases as, the
word of Jehovah, and, Thus saith Jehovah. Now then these men
tell me that I must by no means believe that God really speaks, or
that this is the word of Jehovah, unless the church confirm the
same : in which proceeding every one may perceive that more
credit and authority is ascribed to the church, that is, to men, than
[! Ep. 137. Opp. T. ii. 528. Bassan. 1797.]
HI.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 291
to God ; which is directly opposite to what should be done : for
God ought to be believed before all, since he is the prime and
highest verity; while the church is nothing of the kind. If, there
fore, God address me, and say that this is his word, I should
acquiesce in hi& authority. Hitherto we have shewn that there is
a divine authority in scripture (which we shall do hereafter even
still more clearly); and that, consequently, we should believe it by
itself and of itself. It now remains that we shew that the scrip
tures themselves mutually support and confirm each other by their
testimony ; which is a point easy to be proved.
The old Testament is confirmed by itself, and by the new ; the
new also by itself, and by the old : so that, as it is certain that
there is a God, although the church had never said it, so it is cer
tain that the scripture is the word of God, although the church had
been silent upon the subject. But they, perhaps, would not even
believe God s existence, except upon the church s word. It is evi
dent that the old Testament is proved by the new. In Luke xxiv.
44, Christ divides the whole old Testament into Moses, the pro
phets, and the Psalms : therefore he hath declared all these books
to be authentic and canonical, and hath besides confirmed his whole
doctrine from those books. If, then, we believe Christ, we must
believe the whole old Testament to be endued with authentical au
thority. In Luke xvi. 29, 31, Abraham, when the rich man requests
that Lazarus may be sent to his brethren, replies, " They have
Moses and the prophets ; let them hear them :" as much as to say,
those who will not hear them, will hear no man, not even the church.
In John x. 35, " the scripture cannot be broken," \v9fjvai, there
fore it possesses an eternal and immutable force. In John v. 39,
Christ says to the Jews, " Search the scriptures :" where he under
stands all the books of the old Testament; for the new had not yet
been published. Thus we have shewn in general that the old Tes
tament is confirmed by the new ; let us now shew the same in
detail. Christ himself confirms the books of Moses specially, Matth.
v., where he interprets the whole law ; Matth. xix., where he ex
plains the law of marriage ; Matth. xxii., where he proves the re
surrection of the flesh from Moses; and John iii. 14, -where he
confirms his own death, and its efficacy and benefits, from the figure
of the brasen serpent. The historical books of the old Testament
are likewise confirmed by the new. Matth. xii. 42, Christ mentions
the story of the Queen of Sheba : Luke iv. 26, the story of the
widow of Sarepta is repeated, which occurs 2 Kings v. : Acts ii. 25,
192
292 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
30, 34, a testimony is adduced from the Psalms : Acts xiii. 17 and
following verses, Paul details a long narrative, drawn from several
books of the old Testament : Heb. xi., many examples are produced
from the books of Joshua and Judges. Part of the genealogy which
Matthew exhibits is derived from the book of Ruth. From the
Psalms an almost infinite multitude of testimonies are alleged ; very
many from Isaiah ; many from Ezekiel, and, in a word, from all the
prophets, except perhaps one or two of the minor prophets. But
Stephen, Acts vii. 42, cites the book of the twelve minor prophets,
and thus proves the authority of them all ; for all the minor pro
phets used formerly to make but one book. Now the testimony
there cited is taken from the prophet Amos. Thus it is manifest
that the confirmation of the old may be drawn from the new Testa
ment. Upon this subject, see further in Augustine, in his book,
contra Adversar. Legis et Prophetarum, and contra Faustum
Manichceum.
Now that, in like manner, the books of the new Testament
may be confirmed from the old, is sufficiently clear. For the
truth of the new Testament is shadowed forth in the figures of
the old ; and whatever things were predicted in the old, those we
read to have been fulfilled in the new. Whatever was said ob
scurely in the former, is said plainly in the latter. Therefore if
one be true, the other must needs be true also. Moses wrote of
the Messiah, and so did the prophets. Moses, Deut. xviii. 18, fore
told that there should be a prophet like unto himself; and death
and destruction is denounced upon any who would not hear him.
Peter, Acts iii. 22, and Stephen, Acts vii. 37, teach us that this
prediction of a prophet hath been fulfilled. Moses therefore hath
sanctioned Christ by his testimony. Peter confirms Paul s epistles
by his authority, 2 Pet. iii. 16, and distinctly calls them scriptures.
" The unlearned," says he, " wrest them, as they do also the other
scriptures." Paul confirms his own epistles by his name, and by
his judgment. Therefore the old and new Testaments do, by their
mutual testimony, establish and consign each other. In other cases,
indeed, such a mutual confirmation is of no avail ; but in this it
should be of the greatest, because no one is so fit a witness of God
and his word, as God himself in his word. If then we repose any
credit in the old Testament, we must repose as much in the new ;
if we believe the new, we must believe the old also. But the
papists, on the contrary, would have neither Testament believed on
its own account, but both on account of the church s authority : the
III.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 293
falsehood of which is abundantly evident from what hath been
already said.
But human incredulity will still urge, that this may indeed be
conceded with respect to some books, but that it cannot be affirmed
of every one of the books of the old and new Testament ; because
we nowhere read that the books of Esther, Nehemiah, and Ezra, were
confirmed by the authority of the new Testament : and there are
besides many books of the new Testament which cannot be con
firmed by the old. Besides, if there were even some one book of
the new Testament, in which all the books of the old Testament
were severally enumerated, there would yet be . need (will the
papists say) of the authority of the ancient church, because there
may be some who do not acknowledge the authority of any book ;
and how (they will say) are we to persuade such persons that this
scripture is divine ?
I answer, in the first place, such men as these, who despise all
the sacred books, the church itself will be unable to convince : for
with those who hold the authority of scripture in no esteem, the
authority of the church will have but little weight. Secondly, if
any pious persons have yet doubts concerning the scriptures, much
more certain evidences may be gathered from the books themselves,
to prove them canonical, than from any authority of the church.
I speak not now of the internal testimony of the Spirit, but of cer
tain external testimonies, which may be drawn from the books
themselves to prove them divinely inspired writings. Such are
mentioned by Calvin, Institut. Lib. i. c. 8 l , and are of the following
kind. First, the majesty of the doctrine itself, which everywhere
shines forth in the sacred and canonical books. Nowhere, assuredly,
does such majesty appear in the books of philosophers, orators, or
even of all the divines that ever wrote upon theology. There are
none of the sacred books which one would be more likely to ques
tion than the Epistle of Jude, the second Epistle of Peter, and the
second and third of John, since formerly even some churches enter
tained doubts of them : nevertheless, in these there is contained
such a kind of teaching as can be found in no other writer.
Secondly, the simplicity, purity, and divinity of the style. Never
was anything written more chastely, purely, or divinely. Such pu
rity is not to be found in Plato, or in Aristotle, or in Demosthenes,
or in Cicero, or in any other writer. Thirdly, the antiquity of the
books themselves secures them a great authority. For the books
of Moses are more ancient than the writings of any other men, and
[ l T. i. pp. 6269. ed. Tholuck. Berolin. 1834.]
294 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
contain the oldest of all histories, deduced from the very creation of
the world ; which other writers were either wholly ignorant of, or
heard of from this source, or contaminated by the admixture of
many fables. Fourthly, the oracles contained in these books prove
their authority to be sacred in the highest sense, by shewing it
necessarily divine. For some things are here predicted, which
happened many ages afterwards, and names are given to persons
some ages before they were born ; as to Josiah, 1 Kings xiii. 2,
and to Cyrus, Isaiah xliv. 28, and xlv. 1. How could this have
been without some divine inspiration ? Fifthly, miracles, so many
and so true, prove God to be the author of these books. Sixthly,
the enemies themselves prove these books to be sacred ; for, while
they have endeavoured wholly to destroy them, their fury hath
ever been in vain : nay, many of them, by the penalties and
torments which befel them, were made to understand that it was
the word of God which they opposed. Seventhly, the testimonies
of martyrs make it evident that the majesty of these books is of no
mean character, since they have sealed the doctrine, here delivered
down and set forth, by their confession and their blood. Eighthly,
the authors themselves guarantee, in a great measure, the credit of
these books. What sort of men were they before they were
raised up to discharge this office by the Holy Ghost? Altogether
unfitted for such a function then, though afterwards endowed with
the noblest gifts of the Holy Spirit. Who was Moses, before he
was called by God ? First, a courtier in Egypt, then a shepherd,
finally, endued with the richest outpouring of the Spirit, he became
a prophet, and the leader of the people of Israel. Who was Jere
miah? A man, incapable, as himself testifies, of any eloquence.
Who was David? A youth and a shepherd. Who Peter? A
fisherman, an ignorant and illiterate person. Who John? A man
of the same low rank. Who was Matthew ? A publican, altogether
a stranger to holy things. Who was Paul ? An enemy and per
secutor of that doctrine which he afterwards professed. Who was
Luke ? A physician. How could such men have written so divinely
without the divine inspiration of the Holy Ghost? They were,
almost all, illiterate men, learned in no accomplishments, taught in
no schools, imbued with no instruction; but afterwards summoned by
a divine call, marked out for this office, admitted to the counsels
of God : and so they committed all to writing with the exactest
fidelity ; which writings are now in our hands.
These topics may prove that these books are divine, yet will
never be sufficient to bring conviction to our souls so as to make us
III.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 295
assent, unless the testimony of the Holy Spirit be added. When
this is added, it fills our minds with a wonderful plenitude of as
surance, confirms them, and causes us most gladly to embrace the
scriptures, giving force to the preceding arguments. Those pre
vious arguments may indeed urge and constrain us ; but this (I
mean the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit) is the only argu
ment which can persuade us.
Now if the preceding arguments cannot persuade us, how
much less the authority of the church, although it were to repeat
its affirmation a thousand times ! The authority of the church,
and its unbroken judgment, may perhaps suffice to keep men in
some external obedience, may induce them to render an external
consent, and to persevere in an external unity : but the church can
of itself by no means persuade us to assent to these oracles as
divine. In order, therefore, that we should be internally in our
consciences persuaded of the authority of scripture, it is needful
that the testimony of the Holy Ghost should be added. And he,
as he seals all the doctrines of faith and the whole teaching of sal
vation in our hearts, and confirms them in our consciences, so also
does he give us a certain persuasion that these books, from which
are drawn all the doctrines of faith and salvation, are sacred and
canonical. But, you will say, this testimony is not taken from the
books themselves : it is, therefore, external, and not inherent in the
word. I answer : Although the testimony of the Holy Ghost be
not, indeed, the same as the books themselves ; yet it is not
external, nor separate, or alien from the books, because it is per
ceived in the doctrine delivered in those books ; for we do not
speak of any enthusiastic influence of the Spirit. But, in like
manner as no man can certainly assent to the doctrine of faith
except by the Spirit, so can none assent to the scriptures but by
the same Spirit.
But here two objections must be removed, which are proposed
by Stapleton, of which the former is against this latter reply of
ours, and the latter against the former. The first objection is this :
If it be by the testimony of the Spirit that we know the scriptures,
how comes it that churches, which have this Spirit, agree not
amongst themselves ? For (so he argues) the Lutherans disagree
with you Calvinists, because you receive some books which they
reject: therefore, either you or they are without the Spirit.
This is an objection urged also by Campian and by others. I
answer : In the first place, it does not follow either that they who
296 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
reject those books, or we who receive them, are without the Holy
Spirit. For no saving truth can be known without the Holy
Spirit ; as for example, that Christ died for us, or any other.
This the papists will themselves allow. Yet it does not follow that
all who have learned this truth from the Holy Spirit must agree
in all other points of faith. Nor does it immediately follow, that
all who are in error are without the Holy Spirit, because all errors
are not capital. Now the reason why all who have the Holy Spirit
do not think exactly alike of all things, is because there is not precisely
the same equal measure of the Holy Spirit in all ; otherwise there
would be the fullest agreement in all points. Secondly, both we
who receive some books not received by the Lutherans, have the
precedent of some ancient churches, and the Lutherans also, who
reject them. For there were some churches who received these
books (that is, the epistle of Jude, the second epistle of Peter, and
the second and third of John), and also some who rejected them,
and yet all meanwhile were churches of God. Thirdly, it does not
presently follow that all have the Holy Spirit who say they have
it. Although many of the Lutherans (as they call them) reject
these books, yet it is not to be concluded that such is the common
opinion of that whole church. The papists, indeed, understand and
denote by the name of the church only the bishops and doctors ;
but the sentiments are not to be judged of by merely a few of its
members.
The second objection against our former reply is to this effect :
The scripture is not the voice of God, but the word of God ; that is,
it does not proceed immediately from God, but is delivered me
diately to us through others. I answer: We confess that God
hath not spoken by himself, but by others. Yet this does not
diminish the authority of scripture. For God inspired the prophets
with what they said, and made use of their mouths, tongues, and
hands : the scripture, therefore, is even immediately the voice of
God. The prophets and apostles were only the organs of God.
It was God who spake to the fathers in the prophets and through
the prophets, as is plain from Heb. i. 1. And Peter says, 2 Epist.
i. 21, that "holy men of God spake as they were moved, (pepopevovs,
by the Holy Ghost." Therefore the scripture is the voice of the
Spirit, and consequently the voice of God. But what though it
were not the voice of God immediately, but only the word of
God? Therefore (says Stapleton) it requires to be made known
by the church like the rest) that is, like other doctrines necessary
III.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 297
to salvation. But what? Is it only by the testimony of the
church, that we know all other points of religion and doctrines of
the faith ? Is it not the office of the Holy Spirit to teach us all
things necessary to salvation? Mark well how Stapleton affirms
that we learn all only from the church, and sets the Spirit and
the church asunder. But if the Spirit teach in the church, and it
is by the Spirit that we know the other doctrines, then why may
we not learn from the Spirit this also, that the scripture is the
word of God ? Let him speak and tell us, if he can. But this
(says he) is a " matter of faith, like the rest." I confess it. But
here he strangles himself in his own noose. For if without faith
it cannot be understood that the scripture is the word of God, then
is there need of some more certain testimony than the external
approbation of the church. For the Holy Ghost is the author of
faith, and not the church, except as an instrument, an external
and ministerial medium. He subjoins : " But this, like the rest,
exceeds mere human comprehension." I answer: Therefore men
cannot give us this persuasion, but there is need of some higher,
greater, more certain testimony than that of man. Now the church
is an assembly of men, and is composed of men. " But this (says
he further) should not, any more than the rest, be received by
immediate revelations." I answer : This is no extraordinary or
immediate revelation separate from the teaching of the books them
selves ; because it springs, derives itself, and is perceived from the
word itself through the same Spirit from which that word emanated.
But I would gladly know from them, whence it is that the church
comes to know that the scripture is the word of God. If they say,
by a private revelation ; then they concede that extraordinary and
private revelations are still employed, and so they establish and
confirm enthusiasm ; for this authority they attribute even to the
present church. If they say, by some ordinary means ; then they
must acknowledge that the church hath this knowledge by the
word itself. Stapleton proceeds : Now it cannot be discovered by
reason that one book is apocryphal, another canonical ; this au
thentic, and that spurious, any more than the rest. Therefore it
must be proved by the church. I answer : The inference does
not hold. For it cannot be proved by human reasons that Christ
was born of a virgin, rose from the dead, ascended up to heaven
with his body. Must then the whole credit of these and other
articles depend upon the sole authority and testimony of the church
alone ? Do we believe these things to be true upon no other
grounds but because it pleases the church that we should thus
298 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
believe ? Assuredly not. But what, though it were conceded that
we came to know through the church, that this is the word of God,
and that this teaching is true and canonical, which we do indeed
gladly concede in a certain sense ; yet must this be understood
so as to indicate an external, ministerial means, which God hath
been pleased to use in instructing us, and nothing more. It is
through the ministry of the church, and not on account of the
church s authority. As, therefore, he who receives a message of
great favours promised or bestowed upon him by his sovereign, does
not believe on account of the messenger, or on the messenger s
authority, but on account of the prince s own munificence, or because
he sees the patent or letter signed with the prince s own hand, or
because he recognises some other certain token ; nor believes on
account of the servant, although through his ministry ; so we re
ceive indeed the scriptures sent to us from God through the church,
and yet do not believe it to be sent from God solely on the church s
authority, but on account of the voice of God, which we recognise
speaking clearly and expressly in the scriptures.
I answer, secondly, If scripture cannot be proved by scripture,
as Stapleton says, then certainly much less can it be proved by the
church. For if Stapleton s be a good reason, that scripture cannot
be proved by scripture, because scripture may be unknown or de
nied, that reason will have still greater force against the church.
For the church is no less liable to be unknown or denied than the
scripture. Stapleton calls this a " weighty question ;" and indeed
he must needs find it so. In truth, it is so weighty that he cannot
support himself under it.
But, says he, the case of the church and of the scripture is
not the same. Why ? " Because there is no Christian who is
ignorant of the church." In like manner, there is no Christian
who is utterly ignorant of the scripture. The case of both, there
fore, is the same. Do you yourself deem him a Christian who
denies the whole scripture ? Certainly, he replies ; for he affirms that
some Christians deny the scriptures, such as the Schwenkfeldians,
Anabaptists, and in England the Familists 1 and Super illuminati.
I answer, our question is about real Christians. These are not
Christians truly but equivocally, as the papists are equivocal
catholics. It may indeed happen that there may be some Chris
tians who are ignorant of the canon of scripture, or have even not
seen some books of it, but yet assent to the doctrine contained in the
[* Disciples of Henry Nicholas of Amsterdam. See Hooker. Preface to
E. P., Chap. iii. 9, and Mr. Keble s note, p. 184.]
III.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 299
canon of scripture ; for otherwise they certainly cannot be called
Christians. As to his assertion that there are no Christians who
are ignorant of the church, if he mean it of the Roman church, it is
certain that many Christians have been, and still are ignorant of it ;
many have not. even so much as heard of it. Will he exclude all
these from the hope of salvation ? But if he understand any other
church, it is nothing to the purpose. However, he proves that no
Christians are ignorant of the church, because in the Creed we be
lieve in the church. I confess that in the Creed we do believe in
the church, but not in this or that church, but the catholic church ;
which is no particular assembly of men, much less the Roman syna
gogue, tied to any one place, but the body of the elect which hath
existed from the beginning of the world, and shall exist unto
the end. And why do we thus believe ? Assuredly by no other
argument than the authority of scripture, because the scriptures
teach us that there is such a body in the world, as Augustine repeats
a thousand times against the Donatists, not because any church
attests or professes this proposition. But the church, says he, is
" the means of believing all the rest ;" therefore it is the means
also of believing the existence of the scriptures. I answer, it is in
deed the means, not the principal or prime source; and a mean
merely external and ministerial. But the principal mean is the
word itself, and the prime cause is the Spirit; whereas the church is
only an inferior organ.
"But in the Creed," says Stapleton, "we believe in the
church, but not in the scriptures." To this I return two an
swers. First, since Stapleton allows that we believe in the church,
I demand how, and on what account? If he say, on account
of the church, then we believe a thing on account of the thing
itself. But this is no proof even in his own opinion : for every
proof (as he says himself elsewhere) proceeds from premises better
known than the conclusion. Therefore, we believe the church
through some other mean, that is, through the scripture and the
church. Secondly, Stapleton thus rejects the scripture from the
Creed, since he says that in the Creed we believe in the church,
but not in the scriptures. But the scripture is not rejected from
the Creed ; for the Creed is a compendium and epitome of the
whole scripture, and all the articles of the Creed itself are confirmed
out of scripture. Besides, in the Creed itself we indicate our belief
in scripture: for when I profess that "I believe in God," I profess
also that I believe that God speaks truth in his word, and conse
quently, that I receive and venerate all divine scripture. For the
300 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
word " I believe," which occurs at the commencement of the
Creed, is by the fathers expounded in a threefold sense, that
is, I believe God ; I believe that there is a God ; and I believe
in God. (Credo Deo, Credo Deum, Credo in Deum).
Stapleton goes on to observe, that the whole formal cause of
faith is assent to God revealing something through the church. I
answer, God does, indeed, reveal truth through the church, but so
as through an external ministerial medium. But properly he re
veals truth to us through the Spirit and the scripture : for though
" Paul plant and Apollos water," yet these are of no avail unless
" God give the increase. 1 1 Cor. iii. 6. The church can reveal
nothing to us in a saving way without the Spirit. But nothing can
be hence gathered to make it appear that the authority of the
church and of scripture is not equally doubtful and obscure, nay,
that the authority of the church is not much more so ; since it is
certain that whatever authority the church hath depends entirely
upon the scripture.
So much then in reply to Stapleton s first argument : let us
come now to the rest, which are all, as it were, inferior streams
derived from this first argument, and referred to its confirmation.
However, we will examine them each distinctly and severally, that
a plain answer may be returned on our part to every argument
which he employs.
CHAPTER IV.
WHEREIN STAPLETON S SECOND ARGUMENT is PROPOSED
AND CONFUTED.
IN his ninth Book, chap. 5, he sets forth an egregious piece of
reasoning to this effect : Some writings of the prophets and apostles
have not canonical authority, and some which are not writings of
prophets or apostles are received into the canon. Therefore the
whole canon of scripture rests on, and is defined by, the judgment
of the church. It ought to determine the canon of scripture ; and
consequently the scripture hath its authority from the testimony of
the church.
I have three answers to this. First, it is possible that pro
phets and apostles may have written some things in an ordinary
way to private persons, as, for instance, David sent private letters to
IV.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 301
Joab. These things ought not to be received into the canon. But
whatever they wrote as prophets, and inspired by God, for the
public instruction of the church, have been received into the canon.
Secondly, I demand of him, whether those writings of which he
speaks were in themselves sacred and divine, or not? If they
were ; then the church ought to admit and approve them by its
testimony, as they allow themselves, and the church hath erred in
not receiving them : for it is the office of the church to recognise
the sacred scriptures and commend them to others. If they were
not ; then it is certain that they were written by prophets and apo
stles with some other design than that they should be admitted into
the canon of scripture : so that the church neither could nor ought
to have admitted them into that canon.
Thirdly, no such public writing of either the prophets or the
apostles can be produced, which hath not been received in the
canon of the scriptures. Yet Stapleton endeavours to prove
that there were many such writings both of prophets and apo
stles, which the church never chose to sanction. And, in the
first place, he enumerates certain writings of the prophets, and
then of the apostles which were never admitted into the canon.
By Samuel, says he, and Nathan and Gad, the Acts of David
were written, as appears from 1 Chron. last chapter, verse 29.
But those books are not now canonical. Therefore it is in the
discretion of the church, either to receive books of scripture as
canonical, or to refuse and reject them as apocryphal. I answer,
that in that place the sacred history of the first and second of
Samuel is meant, which was "drawn up by those three prophets,
Samuel, Nathan, and Gad, and which Stapleton rashly denies to be
canonical. For it is certain that both these books were not written
by Samuel, because Samuel was dead before the end of the first
book. Now the church always acknowledged these books to be
canonical. But Stapleton supposes that some other history, the
work of those distinguished prophets, is referred to; which cannot be
established by any proof. Secondly, he says that the Acts of Solo
mon were consigned to writing by Nathan, Ahijah and Iddo, as
appears from 2 Chron. ix. 29. I reply, that the history there
meant is that which is contained in the first book of Kings : or, if
some other history be indicated, how will he prove that, when it
was extant, it had not canonical authority ? Thirdly, he proves from
2 Chron. xiii. 22, that the history of Abijah was written by Iddo
the prophet, which yet is not now extant in the canon. I answer,
that this is the same history of king Abijah which is contained in
302 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
1 Kings xv. Fourthly, he says that the history of Jehoshaphat was
written by the prophet Jehu ; which he proves from 2 Chron. xx.
34. I answer, that the same history is meant which is extant
1 Kings xvi. For it is certain that the histories of Judges, Ruth,
Samuel and Kings, were written by many prophets : whence in
Matth. ii. 1 , at the last verse, a passage is cited from the book
of Judges (for it is found nowhere else); and yet Matthew uses the
expression, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the pro
phets" TO pr)9ev Sid TWV irpo^rjrwv. Whence we may undertand
that that book was written and composed by many prophets.
Fifthly, he says that many writings of Solomon s are now not
extant in the canon of scripture. I answer, that this is no great
wonder, since they have now wholly perished and are not extant
anywhere : for I believe that no man doubts that some canonical
pieces have perished. But if they were now extant, Stapleton
would have to prove that it would depend upon the authority of
the church whether they should or should not be in the canon.
Next he brings a testimony from Augustine, de Civit. Dei, Lib.
xvn. cap. ult. where these words occur : " There are writings of
theirs " (meaning Zechariah, Malachi, and Haggai,) " as there are
of others, who prophesied in great numbers : very few wrote
pieces which had canonical authority 2 ." I answer, these things
which Augustine says have no reference to our question. For he
does not say that many things were written by the prophets which
had no canonical authority; but that, out of a great many prophets,
there were very few who wrote anything : because many prophets
left no written compositions whatever. What he says, therefore, is,
there were many prophets who taught the church only orally ; but
few who wrote anything. This is plainly Augustine s sense and
meaning : whence, by the way, we may take notice of Stapleton s
fidelity in quoting the fathers. These, then, are Stapleton s ob
jections concerning the writings of the prophets. Let us come now
to those writings of the apostles which he affirms not to have been
received into the canon.
The first specifies the epistle to the Laodiceans, which he proves
from Coloss. iv. 16, to have been written by Paul ; yet, says he,
[* Whitaker supposes the reference to be to Judges xiii. 5. But a Naza-
rite is expressed in Greek by Na^apcuos, NaVp, Nat/&gt;, Na^palos-* never, I
believe, by Naa&gt;paTos.]
[ 2 Sunt scripta eorum, sicut aliorum qui in magna multitudine prophe-
tarunt : perpauci ea scripserunt quse auctoritatem canonis haberent. T. ix.
p. 640.]
IV.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 303
that epistle is not now in the canon. I answer : No epistle of the
kind is mentioned in that place. The apostle says, e/c AaocWe/as,
not TTjOw AaoStKeiav, so that the epistle here referred to was not
written to the Laodiceans, but from Laodicea. The mistake arose
from the vulgar Latin edition, which reads, Epistolam Laodi-
censium. Formerly, indeed, there was an epistle which passed
under this name, as Epiphanius (contra Marcion?) and others
remark. Faber Stapulensis counts this amongst Paul s epistles,
but is censured on that account by Erasmus 4 . Those hold a more
reasonable and specious opinion, who think that there was such an
epistle, but that it is now lost. However, even that cannot be
proved from this passage. It appears to me, that what is here
indicated is rather that the Laodiceans had written an epistle to
Paul, in which as there were some things which concerned the
Colossians, and which it was important for them to know, Paul
wished it to be read by the Colossians along with this epistle of
his own. This I judge not incredible, and indeed much the more
probable opinion. To this effect GEcumenius writes distinctly :
" He does not say, that written to Laodicea, but that from Lao
dicea ; not that from Paul to the Laodiceans, but that from the
Laodiceans to Paul. For no doubt there was something in it which
concerned the Colossians 5 ." These remarks QEcumenius took from
Chrysostom. Catharinus too, a papist, acknowledges in his com
mentary upon this place, (p. 366,) that it is not an epistle written
by him to the Laodiceans, but one written from that place. Jerome,
in his catalogue of ecclesiastical writers, under the head of PAUL G ,
makes mention of this epistle, but observes that it is universally
condemned. The second Council of Nice 7 determines it to be
[3 Whitaker is doubtless mistaken in supposing that the miserable modern
forgery, under this title, is the Epistle to the Laodiceans used by Marcion ;
Marcion gave this title to what we call the Epistle to the Ephesians. See
Tertullian, c. Marc. V. xi. 17. Epiphanius loose and inconsistent statements
misled Whitaker. Hasres. xlii. T. I. pp. 310, 319, 374.]
[ 4 Etiam Faber, homo doctus sed aliquoties nimium candidus, diligenter
reliquis admiscuit Epistolis. Erasm. Annot. in Col. iv. 16.]
[ 5 ov yap e?7re TTJV wpos AaoSiKely, aXXa rrjv CK AaodiKeias ypafpeta-av ov rrjv
OTTO HavXov Trpbs AaoSiKea?, aXAa TJ)Z/ ano A.ao8iKeo&gt;v Trpbs ETaOAoi . Hi yap n
TrdvTas tv avrrj &(pe\ovv KoAoo-(raeTff. p. 146. T. II. Paris. 1631.]
[ 6 Legunt quidam et ad Laodicenses, sed ab omnibus exploditur. T. n.
p. 826.]
[f Kal yap TOV Qeiov &gt; ATTOO~TO\OV irpbs AaoSiKety (peperai 7r\ao~Tr) eTTtoroA?/.
Art. 6. p. 5. Concil. Labb. T. vn. p. 475.]
304 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
spurious, and rejects it as supposititious. Theophylact 1 thinks that
the first epistle to Timothy is meant, because it was written from
Laodicea ; Tertullian, in his fifth book against Marcion 2 , the epistle
to the Ephesians.
As to what Stapleton subjoins, that there were some books
written by Peter, and a certain book also of the travels of Paul and
Thecla 3 , which are not in the canon ; I answer, that these books
were always deemed spurious impostures by the church. Jerome
(in Cat. under PETER 4 ) rejects them as apocryphal, and not
written by Peter. Let me therefore say of these, as we read that
Augustine formerly said of some still more ancient (Civit. Dei,
Lib. xvm. c. 38) : " These writings the chastity of the canon hath
not admitted, not because the authority of those men who pleased
God is rejected, but because these are not believed to be their
works 5 ." It rests not therefore with the church s discretion to
make the writings of prophets and apostles canonical or not canon
ical, to reject what is, or to admit what is not, canonical. So far
concerning Stapleton s second argument.
CHAPTER Y.
WHEREIN THE THIRD ARGUMENT OF OUR OPPONENTS IS
EXAMINED AND SET ASIDE.
STAPLETON S third argument is contained in the 6th chapter
of his ninth book, and is to this effect. It is owing to the judgment
and authority of the church, that apocryphal writings of the first
Tiff Se TIV r\ &lt; AaoSiKtias ; 77 frpos Tipofaov irp^rrj. avrrj yap e*
). Theophyl. in Gol. iv. 16, p. 676, Lond. 1636.]
[ 2 Prsetereo hie et de alia Epistola, quam nos ad Ephesios praescriptam
habemus, hseretici vero ad Laodicenos. V. c. 11.]
[ 3 Grabe Spicil. I. p. 95, et seqq.]
[ 4 Libri autem ejus, e quibus unus Actorum ejus inscribitur, alms Eran-
gelii, tertius prsedicationis, quartus Apocalypsis, quintus Judicii, inter apo-
cryphas scripturas reputantur. T. n. p. 814.]
[ 6 Sed ea castitas Canonis non recepit, non quod eorum hominum qui
Deo placuerunt, reprobetur auctoritas, sed quod ista non credantur eorum
esse. T. ix. p. 685.]
V.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 305
kind, such as were formerly not certainly canonical but doubtful,
were after a while admitted into the canon. Therefore, &c. He
calls those books Apocryphal of the first class, concerning which
doubts were at first entertained in the church, although they were
afterwards ultimately received. Such are those whom this same
author and other papists call Deutero-eanonical. For those which
form the second rank of canonical, are the first rank of apocryphal
writings : of which kind, in the old Testament, are Tobit, Judith,
Ecclesiasticus, and those other books concerning which we have
disputed at large in the first Question ; in the new, the Epistle to
the Hebrews, the Apocalypse, the second and third Epistles of
John, the second of Peter, the story of the woman taken in adul
tery, the Epistle of Jude, and the Epistle of James. Together
with these Stapleton, in the fifth chapter of this book, enumerates
the book of the Shepherd, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Acts of
Paul, the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and the travels of
Paul, styling these also Apocryphal of the first class, although books
which neither now nor heretofore were ever received into the canon,
which all those other books of the new Testament have long since
been. Nevertheless this man tells us that all these pieces are of
the same rank, kind, and nature, and that whatever difference is
made between them results entirely from the circumstance that the
church hath judged some canonical, others not, received the one
set, and rejected the other. But there is a wide difference between
them besides this : otherwise the church could not make such a
difference between writings, all of which were really in the same
predicament. For if, as Stapleton says, all these books be of the
same kind, rank, and nature, why hath the church received the
one part rather than the other ? But now let us answer this argu
ment distinctly and in form. The answer shall be fourfold.
Firstly, I say that the church never did receive, by its judgment
and approbation, those books of the old Testament which they call
Deutero-canonical, or Apocryphal of the first class ; which point
we have sufficiently established in the first Question of this contro
versy. If they say the church hath received them, let them tell
us when, and in what council ? Now whatever councils they are
able to produce are merely recent ; and no reason can be assigned
why canonical books should lie so long unsanctioned by the autho
rity of the church.
Secondly, I say that the church neither could, nor ought to
have received them into the canon. For the church cannot make
r 20
[WHITAKER.]
306 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
those books canonical and divine, which are not really in themselves
canonical, sacred, and divine. Even the papists themselves do not
ascribe so much power to the church, whose office terminates in
declaring those books to be canonical, and as such commending
them to the people, which are really and in themselves canonical.
Now we have already proved that these books possess no such
character. The council of Laodicea expressly rejects them as non-
canonical writings, fiifiXia aKavovia-ra. Jerome determines that
no religious dogma can be proved by them : whereas, if they were
canonical, the doctrines of religion might be established from them
just as well as from the rest.
Thirdly, we confess that formerly doubts were entertained con
cerning certain books of the new Testament, as the Epistle to the
Hebrews and others, which books were nevertheless afterwards
received into the canon. But we deny that it is merely on the
church s authority that these books either are, or are accounted,
canonical. For I demand, what reason was it that induced or im
pelled the church at length to receive them ? Certainly no other
cause but this, that it perceived and recognised the doctrine in
them to be plainly divine and inspired by God. Why then may
not the same reason persuade us also to receive them ? Any
other answer which they may give will assign a wholly uncertain
criterion.
Fourthly, although in some churches doubts prevailed concern
ing these books of the new Testament, yet other churches received
them. So Eusebius writes concerning these epistles ; as specially
of the Epistle of James, Lib. n. c. 23. For although he uses the
term vc0eve&lt;rOat\ yet he acknowledges that it was publicly received
(SeSrj/uLocrieviJievrjv) in many churches : which these men can not say
of the Epistle of Barnabas, or the Gospel according to the Hebrews,
or other such like spurious or adulterated pieces. But if, as Sta-
pleton says, these books were indeed equal amongst themselves
and of the same rank (that is, these canonical books and those
spurious ones which he enumerates), and if the church have caused
them to be of unequal authority with respect to us, then the church
hath fallen into a grievous error : for the church ought not to
have caused pieces of equal authority intrinsically to appear other
wise to us. Now Stapleton says that these books are of the same
[! IcrTfov e coy vo0verat p,tv o/icos de Ivptv KOL ravras [this and the
Epistle of JlldeJ /xera TWV Aowrcoz&gt; (V TrAe/arcus 8e77/&gt;iocrtet)juevas
T. i. p. 175. ed. Heinich. Compare Hug s Einl. i. 119.]
V.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 307
rank in themselves; but in respect of us, he ascribes it to the
church s judgment that some are deemed canonical, and not others.
But surely the church cannot change the quality of books, but only
declare them to us to be such as they really are in themselves.
Therefore, if they were all equal, an equal judgment ought to be
passed upon them all. That this rests in the arbitrary decision of
the church, he will never be able to establish : let us nevertheless
attend to the manner in which he attempts to prove it.
Stapleton proceeds to cite many testimonies of the fathers, of
which I will only examine the three principal, and pass over what
is irrelevant to the question. In the first place, then, he objects to
us Eusebius (H. E. Lib. in. c. 19, or in the Greek, 25), who affirms
that the plain mark of the canonical books is the tradition of the
church. I answer : Eusebius there enumerates all the books of the
new Testament, as well those which were always received by all,
as those which were rejected by some, and concerning which doubts
were then entertained in some churches. Eusebius s own words are
as follow : "It was needful that we should draw up such a cata
logue of these, distinguishing those pieces w r hich, according to the
ecclesiastical tradition, are true and unfeigned and acknowledged
scriptures, from those which are not part of the Testament 2 ." To
which testimony of Eusebius I briefly return a threefold reply.
Firstly, we should allow no weight in this matter to the authority
of Eusebius, because it has no force to establish what Stapleton
undertakes to prove. For, while he says that he follows the
ecclesiastical tradition, he distinguishes from the canonical books
those very pieces which the papists themselves maintain to be
canonical, as the Book of Tobit, Judith, &c. the Epistle to the
Hebrews, the Epistle of James, the Apocalypse, &c. Therefore, if
that tradition which Eusebius follows be true, it will prevail as
much against the papists themselves as against us. And if that
tradition be so certain a mark of the books, then the authority of
some books of the canon is utterly destroyed, as the Epistle of
James and other epistles, which this tradition of Eusebius, so much
relied on by Stapleton, banishes from the sacred canon. Let him
then consider for himself what weight is to be allowed to this tes
timony. Secondly, I deny not that ecclesiastical tradition is a means
of proof, whereby it may be shewn what books are canonical and
[ dvayKaioas de KOI TOVTWV ojuco? TOV K.ara\oyov TTfTronj peQa, dcaKpLvavT? ras re
Kara rr]v KK\T](Tia(TTiKriv Trapadoa-iv d.Xrjde is Kal GTrXaorovs KCU dva)iJ.o\oyrjfjLevas
ypcxpas, KOI ras a\\as Trapa ravras, OVK tvdiaQrJKOvs p.ev, K. r. A. T. I. p. 247.]
202
308 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
what not canonical ; yet I say that it is a merely external means
of proof. Now, in order that we should be thoroughly persuaded
of the authority of the canonical books, there is need besides of the
internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. In like manner, with respect
to God himself and the Trinity, and other articles of our faith, the
church gives us instruction, and this tradition ought to have with
all the force of a great argument : and if any were to deny those
articles, we should press them with the authority of the church as
an external argument, which hath in it all the strength necessary
for convincing and refuting the gainsayers. Yet, unless the inter
nal testimony of the Holy Spirit be added, fortified by the ample
authority of scripture, the human mind will never give a solid
assent with entire acquiescence to those articles. Thirdly, Eusebius
writes that he enumerates these books as canonical, not on account
of the ecclesiastical tradition, but according to the ecclesiastical
tradition, which is a very different thing. His words are not Sid
Tt}v TrapdSocriv, but Kara TY\V TrapaScKTiv. Those who suppose
that there is no difference between these two are greatly deceived.
For it is through the church s ministry that we believe whatever
we believe, but not on account of the church s authority ; since our
faith relies upon and is confirmed by an authority much more august,
certain and clear, than that of the church. Let this suffice con
cerning the testimony of Eusebius.
The second testimony cited by Stapleton is taken from Augus
tine, De Doct. Christ. Lib. n. c. 8, where these words occur: "The
believer will observe this rule with respect to the canonical
scriptures, to prefer those which are received by all churches to
those which some do not receive. In the case of those which are
not received by all, he will prefer those which the more and
more dignified churches receive to those which fewer churches or
churches of less authority admit. But if he should find some
received by the greater number, and others by the more digni
fied (though indeed such a case cannot easily be found), yet I
think that the two classes should be deemed of equal authority 1 ."
[* Tenebit igitur hunc modum in scripturis canonicis, ut eas quse ab
omnibus accipiuntur ecclesiis prseponat eis quas qusedam non accipiunt:
in eis vero quae non accipiuntur ab omnibus, prseponat eas quas plures
gravioresque accipiunt eis quas pauciores minorisque auctoritatis ecclesise
tenent. Si autem alias invenerit a pluribus, alias a gravioribus baberi,
(quamquam hoc facile invenire non possit,) sequalis tamen auctoritatis eas
habendas puto. p. 30. Opp. T. in.]
V.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 309
Thus Augustine ; where (says Stapleton) he shews that this whole
truth, and this difference between the books, depends upon the
various judgment of the church. I answer, that Stapleton does
not consider what he says. For, what ? shall this whole truth
and difference between the books depend upon the various judg
ment of the church ? Must the truth and authority of the cano
nical scripture be made thus to hang upon the judgment of the
church, and that judgment itself a variable one? What asser
tion could possibly be more absurd or more insulting than this?
Churches indeed may judge variously and inconstantly, as was
plainly the case in the ancient churches : but the scriptures of
God are always the same, consistent with themselves, and admit
ting of no variety. But Augustine in that place is instructing
tyros and novices, and exhorting them in the first place to attend
to the church as their mistress and admonisher, and to follow her
judgment. Nor will any one deny that this is pious and sound
advice. We do not immediately understand everything ourselves ;
we must therefore listen to the church which bids us read these
books. Afterwards, however, when we either read them ourselves, or
hear others read them, and duly weigh what they teach, we believe
their canonicity, not only on account of the testimony or authority
of the church, but upon the inducement of other and more certain
arguments, as the witness of the Holy Spirit, and the majesty of
that heavenly doctrine, which shines forth in the books themselves
and the whole manner of their teaching. Augustine, therefore,
would have us ascribe much, but not all, to the church in this
matter. But two points against the papists may be gathered from
this place. First, that Augustine never understood or recognised
such a public and certain judgment of the church as the papists
feign; that is, an external judgment, and that passed by the
Roman Church, which all Christians should be bound to stand by
and obey : for then he would have desired a disciple to follow
this judgment, and consult only the Roman Church. Secondly, it
may be gathered from this place, that churches may be true
churches of Christ, and yet judge variously of certain canonical
books. Whence it manifestly appears that all who have the Holy
Spirit do not think alike of all the books of scripture. But, to reply
briefly and in one word, I say that the dictate, and voice, and
commendation of the church is the occasion and first rudiment of
the faith wherewith we believe these books to be divine and given
by inspiration of God ; but that the form and full assurance depend
310 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
upon the internal witness of the Holy Spirit, which must needs be
added before we can certainly know and hold undoubtingly that
these books are canonical and divine.
The third testimony produced by Stapleton, which I have re
solved to answer, is taken from Augustine s eleventh book against
Faustus the Manichean, chap. 5, where Augustine writes to this
effect : " Distinguished from the books of later authors is the ex
cellence of the canonical authority of the old and new Testaments ;
which, having been established in the time of the apostles, hath
through the successions of bishops and propagations of churches
been set as it were in a lofty tribunal, demanding the obedience of
every faithful and pious understanding 1 ." Hence it appears, says
Stapleton, that the scripture is set in this high tribunal by the ap
probation and authority of the church. I answer : Augustine writes
that the canon of the scriptures was established by the apostles,
and is now set in this elevated place through the successions of
bishops and propagations of churches. What does this prove
against us ? Who is so mad as not to perceive that the apostles
established the canonical scripture, and that pious bishops and
churches rendered it the highest reverence? But does it follow
thence, that we do not know what books are canonical by any
other testimony than that of the church ; or that the scripture hath
no other authority with us than that which the church assigns to
it ? Assuredly not. But from this passage of Augustine we draw
the following observations against the papists. First, that the
canon of scripture was settled in the time of the apostles, and con
signed in a certain number of books, and that, therefore, those more
recent councils, by means of which the papists prove that certain
apocryphal books of the old Testament are canonical, are of no avail
against us, since the apostles themselves had determined in their own
times what books should be received into the canon of the old Tes
tament. Secondly, that the books of the new Testament were
written and confirmed by the apostles themselves, and a definite
number of books marked out. Thirdly, that if the canon of scrip
ture were settled by the apostles themselves, it is not now in the
power of the church to add any book to this canon, and so increase
f 1 Distincta est a posterioribus libris excellentia canonicae auctoritatis
veteris et novi Testament!, quse, apostolorum confirmata temporibus, per
successiones episcoporum et propagationes ecclesiarum tanquam in sede
quadam sublimiter constituta est, cui serviat omnis fidelis et plus intellectus.
p. 267. Opp. T. x.]
V.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 311
the number of the canonical books ; which yet Stapleton affirms in
the 14th chapter of this book. Jerome in his Catalogue, and other
authors write that John lived the longest of all the apostles, so as
to be able to see all the books and confirm them, and, if any
fictitious books were published, to distinguish them from the sacred
and truly canonical books. Jerome 2 , in his Catalogue, under the
article LUKE, relates that a certain book concerning the acts of Paul
was presented to John, but that the author was discovered and the
book condemned by the authority of the apostle. Tertullian 3 in
his Prescriptions says, that the very autographs of the apostles
themselves were preserved in his time safe in the churches ; and
the same writer remarks in the same place, " We determine the
document of the gospel to have the apostles for its authors 4 ." Au
gustine, Epist. 19 5 , asserts that these scriptures were received to the
height of canonical authority by the apostles themselves. The fact
that afterwards some persons entertained doubts of certain parts had
its origin not in the scriptures themselves, but in our infirmity.
But perhaps some one may object : If the apostles, who were
the pastors of the church, had the power of consigning the
canon and confirming the canonical scriptures, then the same privi
lege will belong to the other pastors of the church who succeed
them, when assembled together in one place. I answer, the apo
stles may be considered under a twofold aspect : firstly, as the
principal teachers of the church ; secondly, as certain immediate
organs, chosen by God and designated for the special office of
writing and publishing the sacred books. This was so peculiar
to themselves, that in this respect they were placed out of the con
dition of all other men. Now the apostles consignation of the
canon of scripture is to be referred not to the authority of the
church, but to that of God. It was not as the ministers of the
church that they consigned it, but as the unerring organs of the
Holy Ghost, fortified by a divine authority, and commended to the
[ 2 Opp. T. n. 827. This piece was the story of Thecla, printed by Grabo
in the first vol. of his Spicilegium.J
[ 3 Percurre ecclesias apostolicas, apud quas ipsse adhuc cathedrae apos-
tolorum suis locis prsesidentur, apud quas ipsse authenticse literse eorum
recitantur. c. 36. ed. Leopold. Lips. 1841. P. 3. p. 25.]
[ 4 This is a mistake. The passage cited occurs in the 4th Book, Adv.
Marc. c. 2. (p. 147): Constituimus imprimis evangelicum instrumentum
apostolos auctores habere.]
[ 5 Ep. 82. Opp. T. n. p. 253. Commendata. . . ab ipsis apostolis.j
312 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
faith of all. For if they had done this as ordinary ministers, then
all pastors who succeed the apostles would have the like power.
Whence it is manifest that this authority of theirs was of an
extraordinary kind. Therefore the apostles consigned the canon of
scripture, not as men or ministers, but as the representative of
God, the tongue of the Holy Spirit, and, as it were, a divine
oracle. Wherefore this act can avail nothing towards establishing
the perpetual authority of the church. And so much for Stapleton s
third argument.
CHAPTER VI.
WHEREIN THE FOURTH ARGUMENT OF OUR OPPONENTS IS
ANSWERED.
Now follows his fourth argument, which is handled in Lib. ix.
c. 7, and is to this effect : The apocryphal books of the second
class are therefore not accounted divine, because the church hath
never chosen to approve them. Therefore this whole matter
(namely, of receiving and rejecting books) depends upon the au
thority and judgment of the church. He calls those books apocryphal
of the second class, which have been published under the name
of the apostles, either by heretics, or philosophers, or others : of
which kind were, the revelation of Paul, the gospel of Judas
Iscariot, the gospel of Thomas, the gospel of Matthias, the gospel
of Andrew, and the gospel of Peter, which pope Innocent I. in his
third epistle testifies to have been published by philosophers.
These books, says Stapleton, the church hath rejected and repu
diated. Therefore, it appertains to the church to determine concern
ing canonical books, and to consign a certain canon of scripture.
I answer, that this argument proves nothing ; and that for
three reasons. The first is, because we have already granted that
it appertains to the office, and consequently to the authority, of the
church, to distinguish the true and genuine books from spurious.
For it possesses the Spirit of God, under whose instruction it hears
the voice of its Spouse and recognises his teaching. For that same
Spirit, by whom those books were written, still resides in the
church, although not always in the same measure. All this, there
fore, we allow ; but we demand to know how it follows from these
VI.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 313
premises, that we can judge by no other criterion than the church s
determination of their non-canonicity, that these books deserve to
be rejected and refused? Would any one draw so loose and in
consequent a conclusion, who trusted to be able to gain his cause by
legitimate arguments? For our parts, we affirm that there are
other criterions. Let them tell us upon what grounds the church
deems these books spurious ; and I will answer, that we also may
arrive at the same conclusion upon the same inducements. Secondly,
we concede that against heretics an argument may be taken from
the authority and consent of the church, shewing that, since the
whole church hath rejected those books, we justly allow them to
deserve rejection. For who is there so bold and impudent as not
to be greatly moved by the authority of the catholic church ? It
hath seen and examined these books, and can judge better of them
than any private person, because endowed with a greater and more
ample abundance of the Holy Spirit and of judgment : since it
hath, with so much judgment and deliberation, rejected certain
books, we ought not, without any reason, to retain them. This ar
gument, therefore, hath very great weight against heretics, and
heretics may be very much pressed and urged by it ; nor yet
heretics alone, but other opponents also who would either receive
supposititious books, or reject really canonical. This argument
the fathers frequently used ; but, nevertheless, have nowhere said
that all this depended upon the authority of the church, or that
this was either the sole or the greatest argument, whereby heretics
and other adversaries, who held wrong sentiments concerning these
books, might be refuted. Nay, some of those very fathers whom
Stapleton cites have used other arguments upon this subject, as will
appear presently. Thirdly, therefore, those fathers who used this
argument which is derived from the authority of the church, did
not reject these apocryphal books of the second class merely on
account of the church s authority, and solely upon the church s
external judgment delivered as it were in court ; but on account of
other proofs which were taken and derived out of the books them
selves. For those books had generally open errors and perverse
doctrines, from which the church could easily determine that they
were fictitious and spurious books, and not truly canonical. This is
evident from the testimony of those very fathers, whom Stapleton
alleges in his own behalf in this cause, that is, Eusebius and
Augustine.
Eusebius, in his third book, chap. xxv. of the Greek copy,
314 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
speaking of the gospels of Thomas, Peter, Matthias, and other apo
cryphal books of the second class, explains at the end of his dis
course, why these books were rejected by the church, in the following
words: "The very diction, character, and phraseology, are foreign
from the apostolic. Their drift is widely different from the or
thodox religion and doctrine, and therefore they are deservedly
rejected as spurious books and figments of the heretics." It is better
to hear Eusebius^s own words : Hoppw Se TTOV KCU 6
Trapa TO rj9o$ TO airoGToXucov eyaAXaret ^apaKTijpy r\ TG
Kctl TWV GV auTois &lt;pepoimGvwv irpoaipeais, TrXcla Tov bcrov
d\rj9ovs op9o$o^ia$ diracovcra, OTL Se aipeTiKcov dvopcov ava-
a Tvy^avet (jafpws TrapidTrj^iv oOev ov& GV voOots
KdTaTaKTeov, dXX cos aroTra TvdvTrj KCU. cvao eflf) irapai-
Here we may remark Stapleton s fidelity. He would
fain prove from the testimony of Eusebius, that these books are to
be rejected for no other reason but because the church hath rejected
them ; and he cites a place from this very chapter, and from the
words immediately preceding, where it is said : " None of the ec
clesiastical writers hath ever vouchsafed to make mention of these
books in his writings 2 ." Here he breaks off the testimony of
Eusebius : whereas the words quoted above follow immediately,
which he hath altogether omitted, because they make against
himself. In those words Eusebius tells us that, besides the testi
mony of the church, there are two other ways and marks whereby
we may perceive that these books are not canonical : first, rw
XapctKTrjpi Trjs (ppcKrecos, from the style and character, because
the apostles never wrote or spoke after such a fashion ; whence it
appears that, in the opinion of Eusebius, the phrase and diction is
a mark of the canonical books : secondly, T*J yvco^rj /ecu r^J
Trpocupeaei, from the sentiments and design ; that is, from the
kind of doctrine delivered in these books, which, says Eusebius, is
inexpressibly different from sound doctrine and orthodox religion,
so that they not only should not be received, but should be re
jected and abhorred as the impure and wicked productions of the
heretics. Yet Stapleton would fain persuade us that these books
ought to be rejected upon no other account but because the church
hath rejected them. Besides, Eusebius in the same book, chap, 32, 3
t 1 T. i. pp. 24750. ed. Heinichen.]
[2 QJJ/ ovdev ovda.fj,)s ev arvyypdp.iJ.aTi, rwv Kara diado^as
TIS avrfp els fj.vijfj,rjv dyaye iv i^taxrey. Id. ibid.]
[ 3 Euseb. H. E. m. c. 38. pp. 280, 1. ut supra.}
VI.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 315
rejects the dispute of Peter with Apion, on account of its not
maintaining the pure unblemished signature of apostolic and or
thodox doctrine. Qv$e yap, says he, KaOapov ct7rocrTo\iKrjs opOo-
So^ias airocrw^ei TOV -^apaKrrjpa : as much as to say, it is manifest
that this dispute was not held by an apostle, since it wants the true
and genuine mark of apostolical faith and preaching ; it does not
agree with the doctrine of Peter, and therefore it is falsely ascribed
to Peter.
So much for the testimony of Eusebius. I proceed now to
Augustine, who certainly never wrote as Stapleton affirms him
to have written, but to a far different effect. He does not say
that these books were held to be apocryphal solely because they
were full of lies, and contained many things impious and false. In
his 98th tractate upon John, having mentioned the revelation of
Paul, he subjoins, that it is not received by the church: but
wherefore ? Is it because it was placed in the judgment of the
church alone to receive or not receive it ? By no means ; but
because it was " feigned" by certain " vain" men, and because it
was "full of fables 4 ." Well then, do we reject, upon no other
account but the church s testimony, a book " feigned by vain men,
and full of fables ?" Yea, rather we reject it for being such. The
same Augustine, against Faustus the Manichean, Lib. xxn. c. 79,
says that the Manichees read certain books written by " stitchers-
together of fables 5 ." He means the gospels of Matthias, Andrew,
Peter, and those other books which Stapleton hath before enu
merated. These books therefore were not received by the church,
because they were full of fables, not merely because the church
chose to reject them. Besides, the same Augustine, in his work
de coneensu Evangelistarum, Lib. i. c. I, 6 discusses the question
why, since so many had written of the actions and doctrine both of
Christ and of the apostles, only four gospels and the Acts of the
Apostles were received, and assigns two reasons : first, because the
men who wrote those other books were not such as the church
deemed worthy of credit, that is, were not endowed with the extra
ordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit, or so furnished for the task as
all those ought to be who write of such sacred and divine matters ;
[ 4 Qua occasione vani quidam Apocalypsin Pauli, quam sane non recipit
ecclesia, nescio quibus fabulis plenam, stultissima prsesumptione finxerunt.
Opp. T. iv. p. 982.]
[ 5 Legunt scripturas apocryphas Manichsei, a nescio quibus sutoribus
fabularum sub apostolorum nomine scriptas, etc. T. x. p. 490.]
[ 6 T. iv. p. 1. Bassan. 1797.]
316 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [_ CH -
secondly, because they did not write with the same fidelity, but
introduced many things which clash and are at variance with the
catholic faith and rule of apostolic doctrine. Therefore, the fathers
themselves allow that there are other arguments for rejecting these
books, besides the sole authority of the church. As to the Acts of
the Apostles, Augustine writes in that same place, that no others
wrote with the same fidelity as Luke, and therefore that his book
only was received. What could possibly be spoken more plainly ?
These books were at variance with the rule and analogy of faith,
and therefore ought not to have been received, neither could the
church receive them, nor do otherwise than reject and condemn
such books. Now in like manner as the church formerly rejected
those books upon this account, so we also would, on the same
account, now reject and condemn them, if they were still extant.
So much for the fourth argument brought by Stapleton. It re
mains now that we address ourselves to his fifth.
CHAPTER VII.
OF THE FIFTH ARGUMENT OF OUR ADVERSARIES.
STAPLETON S fifth argument is contained in the eighth chapter
of his ninth book, and is to this effect : Heretics rejecting any part
of scripture, or persons doubting any canonical book, are refuted by
the authority and tradition of the church. Therefore it is the
privilege of the church to consign the canon of scripture. Here he
is very large in his citations of testimonies from Augustine, yet to
no advantage of his cause ; since they in no way weaken ours, but
prove a totally different thing, and therefore might be wholly
omitted.
I answer, therefore, that this argument is inconsequential :
heretics are refuted by the authority of the church; therefore
there is no other stronger argument by which the canon of scrip
ture can be established. This is just as if one were to argue
thus : atheists who deny the existence of God are refuted by the
authority of the church, which hath ever confessed one God, the
maker of all things ; therefore there is no other argument whereby
either we or others can be convinced of God s existence, no more
certain reason whereby either they may be refuted, or we esta
blished in the truth. Yea, rather the creatures themselves the
heaven and the earth -cry out that there is a God, as saith the
VII/1 QUESTION THE THIRD. 317
prophet : " The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firma
ment sheweth his handy-work." This is a more certain argument
for the confutation and conviction of the atheists than the testi
mony of the church ; but for the most certain argument of all is
the testimony .of the Spirit, without which it is in vain that all
other proofs are applied. It is manifest therefore, that this is a
plain fallacy of inconsequence, when our adversary disputes thus :
this is an argument, therefore it is the sole argument, or there is
no other argument besides. The inconsequence of such reasoning
will easily appear from a parallel instance, The philosophers may be
so refuted by arguments of their own sort, as to be forced to acknow
ledge the truth of our religion : are there then no other but philo
sophical arguments by which they can be refuted ? Far from it.
However, to return a fuller answer : we observe that the
fathers have indeed used this argument, and that we also may
use it against the heretics ; because, since heretics are without the
Holy Spirit, and are ignorant of the phraseology and sense of
scripture, they will doubtless be more moved by the authority and
testimony of men, than either of God or of the scripture. They
attribute much to the testimony of men, so as that there is no
external argument with which, for the most part, they can be
pressed more strongly and effectually. For such reasoning as this
hath ever had very great weight and influence with all, even the
worst of men : the church hath ever judged these books canonical ;
therefore you ought not to reject, or doubt concerning them. A
man must be shameless indeed, who will not be moved by this
argument. But it is one thing to force men to acknowledge the
scriptures, and quite another to convince them of their truth.
Heretics may perhaps be forced not only by the authority and
testimony of the church, but also by the style of scripture, and
the exact harmony between the old and new Testaments ; which
two points are of no less avail than the testimony of the church for
inducing us to confess that these books are canonical : but to per
suade our souls thoroughly, it is not these or any other arguments
of the same kind that can avail, but only the voice of the Holy
Spirit speaking inwardly in our hearts. For in like manner as a
man may be compelled by many arguments taken from nature to
confess the being of God, and yet will never meanwhile be
persuaded of it in his conscience, until the Holy Spirit hath
infused this faith and persuasion into his heart ; so we may indeed
be compelled by the authority of the church to acknowledge the
318 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
canonicity of the scripture, and yet can never be brought to
acquiesce in it as a firm and solid truth, until the internal testimony
of the Holy Spirit be added. And this argument persuades not
others but ourselves, and prevails not upon others but upon our
selves. We do not therefore endeavour to refute others by the
secret testimony of the Spirit, since it is peculiar to the individual,
private and internal ; but by common arguments taken from the
books themselves, and from the judgment of the church, which are
of such a nature as to move any one not wholly abandoned, and to
leave him nothing to say against them. But it is not sufficient
for us that our judgment should be compelled and coerced ; the
Holy Spirit must excite our whole mind to yield assent. Now
although the fathers frequently use this argument [from authority],
they do not therefore take away other arguments ; so that the
papists, Staple ton and the rest, err greatly in leaving us no others.
We, for our part, do not take away this argument, as they falsely
affirm of us, but allow it to be good, and make use of it ; but con
tend nevertheless that there are some other arguments of a firmer
and more certain nature.
It is not necessary that we should reply severally to all those
testimonies which Stapleton adduces, since we fully allow that
they are all most true. The clearest and strongest testimony
which he alleges is taken from Augustine s book contra Epistol.
Fund. c. 5 ; where Augustine, being about to cite something from
the Acts of the Apostles (which book the Manichees rejected,
because, Acts ii., the Holy Ghost is said to have descended upon
the apostles, whereas they affirmed that his inspiration belonged
solely to themselves), he prefaces the quotation with these words :
" I must needs believe this book, if I believe the gospel, since
catholic authority commends both books to me alike 1 ." Therefore
(says Stapleton) we repose faith in the canonical books solely on
account of the church s authority. I answer, as I have frequently
done already, that we are indeed compelled by the authority of
the church to believe these books canonical, but that we do not
depend upon this argument alone, since we are supplied with other
and stronger evidence. Heretics indeed are coerced by this one
argument, and it is specially to be urged against obstinate persons ;
but those who are not disturbed by passion, not dishonest, not
[* Necesse est me credere huic libro, si credo Evangelic, cum utramque
scripturam similiter mihi catliolica commendat auctoritas. T. x. p. 185.]
VII.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 319
obstinate, but honest and desirous of truth, may be persuaded by
many other arguments. So much may be proved from Augustine
himself in his book de Utilit. Credendi, cap. 3, where he enume
rates several other arguments, such as these : first, the order of
the things ; secondly, the causes of the sayings and acts ; thirdly,
the exact agreement of the old Testament with the new, " so as
that not a tittle is left which is not in unison." These arguments
must be allowed to have great force in them ; but, since heretics
pay but little care and attention to such matters, they must be
pressed with the authority of the church. The same Augustine
also, in the 5th chapter of that same book, writes that he can
easily persuade any one that this or that book of scripture is cano
nical, if he be met with a candid mind not obstinate in its preju
dices. And in chap. 2, he gives the reason why he makes such
frequent use of this argument derived from the authority of the
church, and handles it so diligently, namely, because " the
scriptures may be popularly accused, but cannot be popularly
defended." For the Manichees rendered the old Testament odious
with the people by alleging the adultery of David, Jacob s
marriage with two sisters, and many similar things to be found in
the old Testament, upon which they declaimed largely to the
populace. This is the popular accusation alluded to by Augustine.
When therefore the holy father was anxious to defend the old
Testament, and the scripture itself supplied no such popular argu
ment ; he recalled his adversaries to the common authority of the
church, which was an argument no less popular than their own.
Now we have said enough upon Stapleton s fifth argument.
CHAPTER VIII.
OF THE SIXTH ARGUMENT OF OUR ADVERSARIES.
His sixth argument is contained in the ninth chapter of his
ninth book, and is taken from the authority of Augustine, contra
Epist. Fund. c. 5, where he says: "I would not believe the gospel,
if the authority of the catholic church did not move me 2 ." These
[ 2 Ego vero non crederem evangelic, nisi me catholicse ecclesise com-
moveret auctoritas See Laud s Conference, $. 16. n. 19. p. 81. et seqq.
Lond. 1639.]
320 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
words of Augustine, says Stapleton, have distressed the protestants.
Doubtless they have, and no wonder, since, as he confesses in the
same place, they have deceived even some of the schoolmen also.
They are indeed special favourites, and always in the mouths of
the papists generally; so that a papist can scarce exchange three
words with you, without presently objecting this testimony of
Augustine. This argument is answered by Calvin, Instit. Lib. T. c.7.
and by Musculus and Peter Martyr, by alleging that Augustine
speaks of himself as a Manichean; that he meant that he, when a
Manichean, was moved by the authority of the church to believe
the scriptures. Musculus interprets the words so as to take crede-
rem for credidissem, and commoveret for commovisset ; or, " I,
that is, when a Manichean, or if I were a Manichean, would not
believe the gospel, &c." And indeed this interpretation is most
true : for it is evident from the same chapter that Augustine is
speaking of himself as a Manichean. In the words immediately pre
ceding he says : " What would you do with one who said, I do not
believe?" Then he subjoins : "But I would not believe the gospel,
&c." He speaks, therefore, of himself in an unbelieving state. And
in the same chapter, in the words immediately following, he says :
" Those whom I obeyed when they said to me, Believe the gospel,
why should I not obey when they tell me, Believe not Mani?"
Whence it is plain that he speaks of himself as an unbeliever, and
informs us how he first was converted from a Manichean to be a
catholic, namely, by listening to the voice of the church.
But Stapleton denies this, and endeavours to prove that
he speaks of himself as a catholic by several arguments. His
first reason is, because an infidel does not allow anything to the
authority of the church. I answer, that Augustine was not alto
gether an infidel. He was indeed a heretic, but one most desirous
of truth, and no obstinate heretic. He was a heretic, not from
malice, but from error of opinion. Nor did he doubt, even when
he was a heretic, that he ought to agree and communicate with the
true church, ^although he did not judge aright which was the true
church. Those who are so disposed are easily moved by the
authority of the true church. Stapleton s second reason is, because
a heretic is not moved by the authority of the catholic church,
which he does not acknowledge. I answer, that Augustine speaks
of the church as he thought of it now that he was a catholic, not
as he thought of it formerly when he was a Manichean. His third
reason is, because infidels do not now believe the preaching minis-
VIII.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 321
ters, as Augustine in that same chapter affirms that he did. I
answer : infidels do not, indeed, while they continue infidels, obey
the preaching of the ministers of the church ; but they may be
brought to faith by the preaching of the word, and then they will
obey. And it, was in this very way that Augustine was made a
catholic from a Manichean. His fourth reason is, because Augus
tine in this chapter says of the Acts of the Apostles, " I must
needs believe this book." Therefore (says Stapleton) he speaks of
himself as he then was, namely, as a catholic. I answer, that this
is no reason. For whether he speak of himself as a catholic or as
a Manichean, it was needful by all means that he should believe
this book, inasmuch as it is the word of God : for all alike must
needs either receive or reject the Gospels and the Acts together.
His fifth reason is, because Augustine writes in the fourth chapter
of this book, that even when he was a bishop, he was kept in the
church, on account of the name of the church and the consent of
people and nations. I answer, that Augustine does indeed confess
this : yet nevertheless, besides these two, he alleges another stronger
argument in that same chapter, namely the absolutely constant
truth of doctrine ; which if the Manicheans could allege in their
behalf, he promises that he would be willing to desert the name of
the church and the consent of people and nations, and return to
them. Therefore he ascribed more to the truth of doctrine than
to the judgment and authority of the church.
Finally, says Stapleton, Augustine everywhere in all the places
before alleged attributes to the church the privilege of consigning the
canon of scripture -to the faithful. I answer, in the first place, it would
be repugnant to Augustine himself to make him say that, now that
he was a believer and a catholic, he would not believe the gospel,
save only upon the authority of the church ; since he himself in the
fourteenth chapter of this book says that we, when we believe and
are become strong in faith, understand what we believe not now by
the help of men, but by God himself internally confirming and
illuminating our minds. The faithful, therefore, do not believe
merely on account of the church s authority. Secondly, I say that
this is also repugnant to reason itself. For all the faithful are
endowed with the Holy Spirit. Now his authority is greater than
that of the church. Therefore it is not to be doubted that they
are kept in the true faith by his rather than by the church s
authority. Thirdly, what if we were to acknowledge that the
21
[WHITAKER.]
322 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
faithful themselves are moved by the authority of the church to
receive the scriptures ? It does not follow thence, that their inti
mate inward persuasion is produced by the same way, or that they
are induced by no other and stronger reason. What Christian is
there whom the church of Christ, commending the scriptures to
him, does not move? But to be moved is one thing, and to be
persuaded is another. The Samaritan woman who is mentioned in
John iv. moved many of her countrymen by her testimony to
Christ, and excited them to flock to Christ and lend his instructions
a favourable and willing attention. But the same persons afterwards,
when they had heard Christ, said to the woman, " JSTow we believe
not on account of thy speech (Sia rrjv &lt;JY\V XaAtai/), but because we
have heard him ourselves, and know that this is the Christ, the
Saviour of the world." So the authority of the church may at first
move us to acknowledge the scriptures : but afterwards, when we
have ourselves read the scriptures, and understand them, then we
conceive a true faith, and believe, not because the church judges
that we should believe, but, as for many other more certain argu
ments, so for this specially, because the Holy Spirit persuades us
internally that these are the words of God.
But since this testimony of Augustine is urged so vehe
mently by Stapleton, other papists shall easily either teach or
remind him, how little force it hath to establish the perpetual
authority of the church. Driedo, Lib. iv. c. 4, determines that
Augustine speaks in these words of the primitive church of the
apostles : for if Augustine were now alive, and meant to speak of
the church such as it now is, he would rather say, " I would not
acknowledge such men to be the church of Christ, unless the autho
rity of the four Gospels taught me so." Wherefore we do not
now believe the gospel on account of the church, but, on the con
trary, the church on account of the gospel. Whence also it fol
lows that the gospel is the truest mark of the church. Bellarmine
himself, in his MSS. Lectures upon the Secunda Secundce of Aquinas,
QuEest. i. art. i. Dub. 1, tells us, that Augustine " speaks of the
church as the propounding cause, not as the prime foundation of
faith." For we should not believe the gospel unless the catholic
church propounded ifc : which, no doubt, is true. For, unless the
church commended the sacred books to us, and led us, as it were,
by the hand, to the very fountains of divine truth, we should never
emerge out of the darkest shades of error. But does it therefore
VIII.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 323
follow that the apocryphal books cannot be distinguished from the
canonical otherwise than by the mere authority of the church?
By no means. And there is no need that we should say more of
this sixth argument.
CHAPTER IX.
OF THE SEVENTH ARGUMENT OF OUR ADVERSARIES.
THE seventh argument is contained in Book ix. chap. 10,
where he joins other fathers to Augustine, for the purpose of
proving, that the canon of scripture must be consigned by the
authority of the church. But what else do all those fathers prove
but this, that the scripture should be received because it hath ever
been received by the church, and that certain books should be
rejected because they have ever been rejected by the church ?
Now this we most willingly confess. For we concede that the
authority of the church is one argument, and a good one too : but
it does not immediately follow either that it is the only argument,
or that this whole matter depends upon the authority of the church.
I might, therefore, disregard all those testimonies, and pass them
over as irrelevant ; but I prefer to touch upon them briefly, lest I
should seem to have omitted anything. Now the testimonies, which
Stapleton alleges in this chapter, are five in number : namely, from
Theodoret, Tertullian, Irenasus, the first council of Toledo, and
Serapion the bishop of Antioch ; to each of which severally we shall
give a brief reply.
Theodoret, in his argument to the Epistle to the Hebrews,
writes thus against the Arians, who denied the authority of that
epistle : "If nothing else, they should at least have respected
the length of time during which the disciples of the truth have
been wont to read this epistle continually in the churches 1 ." I
answer : What is all this to us ? Nothing whatever. We grant
that this epistle is to be embraced with all reverence, and that its
opponents may be pressed and coerced by the argument drawn
[1 eSei de avrovs, ei Kai prj^ev erepov, rov \povov yovv aldO"6fjvai TO HTJKOS, ev
o&gt; rrjvde TTJV emo-ToXrjv ev rals fK&lt;\r)(ria.is dvayivao-Kovres diTf\(rav rfjs
a-ias of Tpofapoi. Theod. Argum. in Heb.]
212
324 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [c H.
from antiquity. But, I beseech you, hath Theodoret written that
nothing else gains authority for this epistle, save this very antiquity
of time? By no means, but rather quite the opposite, as is manifest
from his words : for he says, " if there were nothing else," they
should be moved by the very length of time. Therefore, he in
timates that there were other arguments, besides antiquity of time,
whereby the authority of this epistle might be confirmed. And
amongst these other arguments the principal, no doubt, was the
very doctrine itself of the epistle, which the church acknowledges by
the assistance of the Holy Spirit. For what else can be adduced ?
Thus, therefore, this first testimony alleged by Stapleton is an
swered easily, and almost without any effort.
But perad venture the second is clearer, which we have now,
in the next place, to discuss. It is that of Tertullian in his book of
Prescriptions against the heretics, where these words are to be
found : "I will allege as a prescription, that what the apostles
preached should not otherwise be proved, but through those same
churches which the apostles themselves founded 1 ." What (says
Stapleton) could possibly be more plainly said ? I answer : I con
fess indeed that the words are plain, but I affirm that Tertullian
speaks not of the apostolic epistles, but of the apostolic doctrine ;
which is sufficiently manifest from the words immediately preceding.
For thus he writes : " We draw up therefore this prescriptive plea:
if the Lord Jesus Christ sent apostles to preach, then no other
preachers are to be received than those whom Christ instructed ;
because no man knoweth the Father but the Son, and he to whom
the Son hath revealed him, and the Son seems to have revealed
him to no others than the apostles, whom he sent to preach, no
doubt, that which he had revealed to them 2 ." Then he applies
this prescription, namely, that the doctrine which the apostles
preached should not be proved in any other way but through
those churches which they founded. In which words Tertullian
does not reject, however, all other testimonies. For if this had
[ J Quid autem prsedicaverint, id est, quid illis Christus revelaverit, et hie
prsescribam non aliter probari debere, nisi per easdem ecclesias quas ipsi
Apostoli condiderunt. c. 21. p. 14.]
[ 2 Hinc igitur dirigimus prsescriptionem, si Dominus Jesus Christus apos-
tolos misit ad prsedicandum, alios non esse recipiendos prsedicatores quam
quos Christus instituit, quia nee alius Patrem novit nisi Filius et cui Filius
revelavit; nee aliis videtur revelasse Filius quam apostolis, quos misit ad
prsedicandum utique quod illis revelavit. Ibid. Whitaker reads hanc for
hinc. I know not on what authority.]
IX.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 325
been his meaning, that the evidence of the apostolical epistles to
us depended entirely upon the approbation of the apostolical
churches, then he would have rejected the testimony of the Holy
Spirit ; which he certainly never meant to do. Nay, this would
not be consistent even with our adversary s own defence. For he,
in the last chapter of this his ninth book, will have the canon of
scripture to be consigned by the rule of faith. Therefore, besides
the approbation of the church, he would have the rule of faith
also to be necessary ; for the rule of faith is a different thing from
the external judgment of the church. But Tertullian s meaning,
as appears from the words following, is, that every doctrine is true
which agrees and harmonises with that doctrine of the churches,
which they received from the apostles, and the apostles from
Christ ; and that whatever does not so agree is adulterate and false.
For thus he subjoins : " If these things be so, it follows thence,
that every doctrine which agrees with those apostolical churches,
from whose wombs the faith derived its origin, is to be accounted
true ; and that that is undoubtedly to be held, which the churches
received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from
God ; but all other doctrine is to be judged beforehand to be false 3 ."
This is so far from taking away the testimony of the Holy Spirit,
that it rather establishes it ; for the Holy Spirit is the judge of
apostolical doctrine. Therefore he attributes nothing to the church,
unless it hold this doctrine. Besides, to say, as Tertullian says,
that " doctrine should be proved by the church," is a different
thing from saying that it should be received only on the authority
of the church, which Stapleton means. We concede the former,
especially as far as the apostolical churches are concerned, but the
latter by no means. For although it be through the church that
we know doctrine, yet that it is now upon the authority of the
Holy Spirit that we believe, even our adversaries themselves allow,
as ye shall hear hereafter. Therefore, when Tertullian speaks of
sound and apostolical doctrine, although he says that it should
agree with the faith of the apostolic churches, he nevertheless does
not, on that account, set aside the testimony of the Holy Spirit.
So much upon the testimony of Tertullian. 1 come now to
[ 3 Si hsec ita sunt, constat proinde omnem doctrinam, quoe cum illis
ecclesiis apostolicis, matricibus et originalibus fidei, conspiret, veritati depu-
tandam, id sine dubio tenentem quod ecclesise ab apostolis, apostoli a Christo,
Christus a Deo accepit ; reliquam vero omnem doctrinam de mendacio prse-
judicandam. Ibid. ]
326 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
Irenseus, from whom Stapleton quotes some words, which, it must
be allowed, have very little force in them. For we confess with
Irenseus, that the authority of the church is a firm and compendious
demonstration of the canonical doctrine a posteriori, but not a
priori: but we deny that this is the sole, or the greatest, or the
strongest argument. This Stapleton could not prove from Irenaeus.
Besides, when Stapleton concedes out of Irenseus, that heretics who
denied some scriptures were refuted by the scriptures which they
received, does he not affirm, exactly as we would have it, that scrip
ture may be proved by scripture, and that scripture may be other
wise recognised and proved than by the testimony of the church ?
His fourth testimony is taken from the first council of Toledo,
the twenty-first canon of which is to this effect : "If any shall say
or believe that any other scriptures are to be received, save those
which the church hath received, let him be anathema 1 ." I answer :
I do not see why I and all good Christians may not be permitted
to say Amen to these words. For we think no otherwise than we
are directed in this canon, and receive or reject no book without
the testimony and example of the catholic church. Wherefore this
denunciation of an anathema touches us in no way. But I wonder
that Stapleton should be so stupid as not to understand or remark
how weak is this argument of his : No scriptures should be re
ceived, which have not been received and approved by the church :
therefore, scriptures are only to be received on account of the
church s testimony. No scriptures should be rejected, but those
which the church hath rejected : therefore the apocryphal writings
are to be rejected solely on that account, because the church hath
rejected them.
And of this testimony enough hath been said. Now follows
the fifth and last, which is that of a certain Serapion, bishop of
Antioch, of whom Eusebius speaks H. E. Lib. vi. c. 11, taken from
an epistle of his : " We," says Serapion, " refuse certain books
falsely inscribed with the names of the apostles, knowing that we
have never received such 2 ." Now he speaks of the gospel of
[ l Si quis dixerit aut crediderit alias scripturas recipiendas esse prscter
illas quas ecclesia recepit, anathema sit. Anathem. xn. col. 328. Collect.
Cann. Eccles. Hispan. Matriti. 1808.]
[ 2 H/mj yap, ddf\&lt;poi, KOL Hfrpov KOI rovs a\\ovs aTrooToAov? a7ro8e^o/Lie^a
&lt;as XpioTov TO. 8e oj/o/zari avr&v ^cvdeTnypcK^a as e/ATrei/Jot irapa.iTovp.f0a,
yivaxTKovTcs OTI TO. ToiavTa ov 7rapf\dfiofj.ev. H. E. Lib. VI. C. 12. pp. 177 8.
T. ii. ed. Heinich.]
IX.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 327
Peter, which used to be read in some churches. I answer : That
book was rejected by Serapion on account of the many falsehoods
which were found in it, as is plain from the words which follow :
therefore it was not rejected merely on account of the authority
of the church. In this place Stapleton hath, as he often does,
made use of a notable artifice. We, says Serapion, have not re
ceived the book, we t/txTret/oot, as being skilful and expert ; ywto-
ovcoi/Tes OTI TO. Toiavra ov 7rape\aftofj.ev. And Eusebius says
that he refuted TO. -v|/ef$aJ9 ev avrw eiprjimeva, " the falsehoods
contained in it." The book, therefore, was interspersed with some
falsehoods and impostures. Besides, Stapleton omits some words
which have great force in them, as will manifestly appear to any
one who will look at the passage. For Serapion says 3 , at the end
of that chapter, that he had found very many things opOou \oyov,
sound, in that book, but some also TTpocr^iearaX^eva, foreign from
and at variance with the orthodox faith, and therefore had re
jected it. He therefore did not reject it merely on account of
the church s judgment, of which no mention is here made, but
on account of the doctrine delivered in the book itself. This
seventh argument, and the sixth also, which immediately preceded
it, were merely human; and how weak such arguments are in
causes of faith, every one must understand.
CHAPTER X.
OF THE TWO REMAINING ARGUMENTS OF OUR ADVERSARIES.
I COME now to the eighth and last argument, which Stapleton
considers the weightiest and most important of all. It is stated in
the eleventh chapter of his ninth book, and is drawn from the rule
of faith, thus : The rule of faith which is lodged with the church,
and delivered by the church, is the means by which the masters
and pastors of the churches distinguished true scriptures from false.
Therefore the church only should determine of the canonical books
of scripture. I answer : if by the rule of faith we understand the
articles of faith, then this reason of our adversary is not sufficient
for the confirmation of his cause, nor is there any consequence in
[ 3 Kal evpflv TO. /j.ev TrXetom TOV 6p6ov \6yov rov Swr^pos, TWO, fie irpo-
. Ibid. p. 179.]
328 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
his argument. For this is no reason : Such a book teaches things
in harmony with the articles of the faith ; therefore it is canonical.
For many books expound that sound doctrine which is in perfect
harmony with the articles of the faith, and nevertheless should not
be received into the canon. The reason is indeed good negatively
the other way : such a book delivers something repugnant to the
articles of the faith; therefore it is not canonical. But affirmatively,
it does not hold. But what is that rule of faith ? Undoubtedly
the rule of faith is the scripture itself: if therefore, the canon of
scripture be consigned by the rule of faith, then the scripture is
confirmed by the scripture, which is the very thing we maintain.
But he means far otherwise. The rule of faith, says he, is not
the scripture, but a certain previous, presupposed, and pre-existing
faith, which; being prior to the scripture, is neither included in, nor
convertible with, the scripture. This is certainly an impious and
blasphemous fiction of Stapleton s. For it is to be held undoubt-
ingly, as we shall hereafter prove most largely, that the revealed
and written word of God is the sole rule of faith, which is a thing
prior to the faith of the church. For all " faith is by hearing, and
hearing by the word of God," Rom. x. 17 : that is, our hearing
hath regard to the word of God, as its object, and objects are
prior to the senses perceiving them ; therefore the word is prior to
faith. If he feign another rule of faith besides the written word of
God, we reject, repudiate, and refuse to acknowledge any such, and
reduce the whole rule of the catholic faith to the scripture alone.
But I ask whether it is by this rule, or without this rule, that
the church distinguishes true scriptures from false? Stapleton
answers thus, at the close of the chapter: "The rule of faith/ says
he, " delivered and accepted by the church, is the sole and most
certain mean, whereby the pastors and governors of the church
distinguish the true scriptures from the false: therefore, without
this rule the genuine scriptures cannot be distinguished from the
spurious." I derive then from this statement four observations.
Firstly, if true scriptures are discerned from false by the rule
of faith, then it no less appertains to the whole body of the church
to consign the canon of scripture, than to the pastors and governors
of the church themselves. For all the faithful have this rule, not
alone the pastors, governors and prelates ; because the faith is
common to both laymen and ministers. Now this makes against
Stapleton, who does not attribute this power to the whole body of
the church, but only to the prelates and pastors.
X.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 329
Secondly, if it be not by its own authority, but by the rule
of faith, that the church distinguishes the true scriptures from the
false, then all Stapleton s former arguments, drawn from the au
thority of the church, are of no avail ; because the church does not
rest simply on its own authority, but on some certain rule of faith
in adjudicating and discriminating scripture. Thus the previous
arguments, which are founded on the bare authority of the church,
are altogether avoided, and the whole judgment of the church is
tied to the rule of faith.
Thirdly, how can these things agree, or in any wise stand
together ? He says that the pastors and masters of the church do,
by means of the rule of faith delivered and received by the church,
distinguish the true scriptures from the false ; and under this name
of the church he understands the pastors only, and prelates, and
masters (as he calls them) of the churches. Therefore, he says
nothing else but this, that the pastors do, by means of the rule of
faith delivered and received by the pastors, discriminate the scrip
tures. But, in the first place, the pastors do not always think
alike concerning the canonical scriptures, (if by the pastors ho
understand the bishops and doctors.) as may be proved from anti
quity. If therefore this rule be delivered by the pastors, it will
be changeable and uncertain. Yea, even the pastors of the present
day do not think alike of the canonical books. It is necessary,
therefore, that at length they should betake themselves to the
pope alone, as to (in their own phrase) the chief pastor, make him
the church, and make all depend upon his caprice. Again, how
absurd is it, that pastors should receive from pastors, that is, from
themselves, the most certain mean of discerning the scriptures !
These things are of such a nature, that certainly they can in no
way be reconciled.
Fourthly, I ask what this rule is ? and where we may find it
containing a certain and definite enumeration of books? is it
written or unwritten ? If he say, written ; I demand where it is
written. If it be not written, we may easily despise it, as a thing
of no credit or importance: for we make no account of their
pretended unwritten traditions. But he says that it is written
in the hearts of the faithful, and to this purpose he adduces the
testimonies of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and others, where the Lord says
that he will write his laws in the hearts of the faithful. We
for our parts approve all this. But, in the meanwhile, he does
not perceive that he is overturning all that he had previously
330 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
established. For he said above, that the testimony of the Holy
Spirit is therefore to be rejected because not an external, but an
internal, evidence. But if this rule of faith be written in the
hearts of the faithful, how, I beseech you, will it be more certain
than the testimony of the Spirit? And wherein does it differ
from the testimony of the Spirit? since faith is the work and
effect of the Holy Ghost in the hearts of the faithful, received from
the word of God, whereby all saving truth is proved and confirmed
to us. Therefore, Stapleton hath at length of his own accord
passed over entirely to our opinion.
Stapleton next handles two subjects at the end of this book.
The first is, that not only the ancient apostolical church, but this
present church also, may consign and constitute the canon of
scripture. Wherein he hath for opponents Durandus and Driedo,
two very learned papists, who contend that this power related
only to the apostolical church ; and that the office of the present
church was only to receive the canon consigned by that other more
ancient church. With these he enters upon a very severe en
counter and contention, of which I shall not be a sharer, but a
spectator only.
The second is, that this present church also might even now add
other books to the canon, as the book of the Shepherd, and the
Apostolical Constitutions written by Clement, and other books also,
which were formerly doubtful, but never condemned : which indeed,
it is manifest, is said and maintained absurdly. But, it seems, they
have gone to such a length of impudence, that nothing is so revolt
ing to be said, as to make them ashamed of affirming it. Certainly
the book of the Shepherd is altogether unworthy of such great
authority ; and the Apostolical Constitutions of Clement have not
even a grain of the apostolic spirit. The church, therefore,
neither can, nor should, receive these books into the canon. Sta
pleton, while he asserts the competency of the church to do this,
is at variance both with very many papists (Thomas a Walden 1 ,
for example, and others), and even with himself; since he had
already alleged a testimony from Augustine, whence it appeared
that the canon of scripture was consigned by the apostles, who
excluded this book from the canon. But I would fain have him
answer, whether the canon of scripture was settled heretofore, or
not ? He cannot deny that it was : for he has already confessed
it out of Augustine ; and there are some councils too, which the
[ l Doctrin. Fidei, T. I. L. 2. Art. 2. c. 23. N. 9.]
X.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 331
papists object to us, in which they say that the canon of scripture
was consigned. If, therefore, the canon of scripture was consigned
formerly, certainly a canon settled by so great authority cannot
be changed, or this or that book introduced into it. For how
grossly absurd would it be, either that a book intrinsically canon
ical should be for so many ages not received into the canon ; or
that it should now, so late, in the very last age of the world, be so
received ! As to the Constitutions of Clement, they were even con
demned by the judgment of some councils, as is shewn above.
They were deemed, therefore, wholly unworthy of having rank or
place in the canonical scriptures : yea, they certainly can never be
received into the canon by the church. For the church cannot
make non-canonical books canonical, but only cause those books to
be received as canonical, which are really such in themselves.
Augustine, at least, was so far from thinking that this most vene
rable canon could be changed, or increased by any new accession
of books, that in his 129th sermon upon the Times 2 he does not
hesitate to denounce an anathema upon all who believe that any
scriptures should be held in authority, or reverence any but those
which the church had received. Therefore, if the church were to
receive any new books into the canon, it would act against the
faith itself, and deserve the severest censure, nay, execration.
Now that it hath this power is boldly maintained by Stapleton :
whence it is plain enough how great an injustice he does the
church. But we have answered Stapleton s arguments already at
sufficient length.
There remains now one other argument, which Stapleton in
deed hath not made use of: but I perceive that some other papists
are exceedingly delighted with it. It is to this effect : The church
is more ancient than the scripture ; therefore it ought to have more
authority in respect of us than the scripture. So Eckius, in his En
chiridion : so Hosius, Lib. iii. de Auctoritate Scripturce : so Linda-
nus, in his Panoply, in many places : so Andradius in the third
book of his Defence of the Council of Trent : so Schrock the Jesuit,
in his 13th Thesis ; and some others beside. I answer : In the first
place, I confess that there was a time when the word of God was not
written, and that the church existed then : but it does not, there
fore, follow that the church was more ancient than the word. For
the doctrine was the same when not written, as it is now when it
is written ; and that was more ancient than all churches. For the
[ 2 Col. 876. Opp. T. x. Basil. 1569.]
332 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
word of God is the seed of the church. Now the seed is always
more ancient than that progeny of which it is the seed. When I
speak of the word of God, I mean no other than that which is now
written : for the unwritten word was the same with that which is
now written. Secondly, Neither is that assertion true, that all
things that are junior are of less authority. For Christ was later
in time than John. Shall then the authority of John be greater
in respect of us than that of Christ ? No one in his senses will
affirm that. This argument therefore is but slight, and of no im
portance whatsoever, although it be handled very shewily by some
authors. Some of the papists have laboured, as if they were on a
question of chronology, to shew that the word was unwritten for
more than two thousand years, and that the gospel was preached
about thirty years before it was written. But there is no reason
why we should give this argument a larger answer in this place.
CHAPTER XI.
OUR ARGUMENTS, WHEREBY WE PROVE THAT THE AUTHORITY OF
THE SCRIPTURE, IN RESPECT OF US DOES NOT DEPEND UPON
THE JUDGMENT AND AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH.
HITHERTO we have spoken of the arguments of the papists,
and have given such answers as are sufficient to satisfy all im
partial persons. Now follow the arguments of our defence.
Our first argument is to this effect : If the scripture had divine
authority before any public judgment of the church, then it hath
of itself in respect of us canonical authority, and its authority
does not depend upon the church. But the former is true ; there
fore also the second. The major proposition is manifest. The
minor is confirmed by four reasons. The first : The papists them
selves confess that the church does not make the scripture au
thentic, but only declares it. But if the scripture be first authentic
of itself, then certainly it necessarily follows that it must be au
thentic also to us ; for nothing can be called authentic, which
seems authentic to no one. That is called authentic, which is
sufficient to itself, which commends, sustains, proves itself, and hath
credit and authority from itself; the contrary of which is de&lt;r-
XI.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 333
TTOTOV and axvpov, that, namely, which is uncertain and hath no
authority of itself. Therefore, if the scriptures were authentic
before the church declared them to be authentic, they were au
thentic also to us ; otherwise they were absolutely incapable of
being declared Authentic.
The second. The judgment of fathers, councils, and the church,
is but recent, if we respect the antiquity of scripture. If therefore
the authority of scripture depend upon the public judgment of the
church, then doubtless for many centuries there was no certain
canon of scripture. Fathers, indeed, and councils enunciate the
canonical books ; but those books both were, and were esteemed,
previously authentic, and canonical, and sacred, as is plain from
those fathers and councils themselves. Let them produce any
public judgment of the church, and it will readily appear that the
scriptures were deemed canonical before that judgment.
The third. I demand what this judgment of the church was,
or where it can be found ? If they answer, In the books of the
fathers, and the decrees of the councils : I desire to know, how we
are more sure of the authority of the fathers and councils than of
that of scripture? For example, whence are we more certainly
assured that these are the books of Augustine, those of Jerome,
than we are that this is the Gospel of Matthew, and that of Mark ?
If they urge, that the living voice of the church is necessary, then
they must needs abandon the support which they are wont to build
upon in the authority of the ancient church. If they say, that this
is certain from the voice of the present church ; I ask again, whence
it appears that this is the voice of the true church? They
must prove this from the scriptures; for the true church can no
otherwise be proved but from the authority of scripture. Now
from thence it will follow that the authority of scripture is more
certain than that of the church.
The fourth. If the church be gathered together to consign the
canon of scripture, it must needs be so by some authority. I
demand, therefore, by what authority it is so collected ? If they
answer, by some internal impulse or revelation of the Spirit, we
entirely reject such revelations which are besides the word, as
fanatical and anabaptistical and utterly heretical. If they say that
it is collected by the authority of scripture, then they concede that
which we demand : for it will thence follow, that the scripture
had a canonical authority before it was confirmed by the judgment
of the church. If they allow only this part of scripture which
334 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
gives such an authority to the church to have been previously
canonical, but deny the rest to have been so, they do this without
any certain reason. Suffice it to say so much of our first argument.
Our second argument is to this purpose. That is the true
and proper cause of that authentic authority which the scripture
holds with us, which produces this effect perpetually and neces
sarily ; that is, which always causes the scripture to have an
authentic authority with us. But the necessary and perpetual
cause of this is only the testimony of the Holy Spirit, not the
public judgment of the church. Therefore, the testimony of the
Holy Spirit, and not the public judgment of the church, is the true
and proper cause of that authentic authority which the scripture
hath with us. Concerning the major there can be no doubt ; and
the minor is easily established. For if the judgment of the church
always rendered the authority of scripture canonical in respect of
us ; then all who heard this from the church would presently believe
it, and immediately all, to whom this judgment of the church came,
would receive that canon which the church had established. But
the church hath long since consigned the canon of scripture, and
nevertheless the Jews, Turks, Saracens, and even many Christians
do not heartily assent to it: it is, therefore, evident that the
judgment of the church is not the certain, necessary, solid and
perpetual argument of that authority which the scripture obtains.
But the Holy Spirit always produces this effect : his testimony,
therefore, is the true and proper cause of the authority of scripture
in respect of us.
Our third argument stands thus : If the authority of the church
in respect of us depend upon the authority of scripture, then the
authority of scripture in respect of us does not, on the contrary,
depend upon the authority of the church. But the first is true,
and therefore also the second. The consequence of the major is
sufficiently strong of itself; and the assumption may be easily
established. For I demand, whence it is that we learn that the
church cannot err in consigning the canon of scripture? They
answer, that it is governed by the Holy Spirit (for so the council
of Trent assumes of itself), and therefore cannot err in its judgments
and decrees. I confess indeed that, if it be always governed by
the Holy Spirit so as that, in every question, the Spirit affords it
the light of truth, it cannot err. But whence do we know that it
is always so governed ? They answer that Christ hath promised
this. Be it so. But where, I pray, hath he promised it ? Readily,
XI.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 335
and without delay, they produce many sentences of scripture which
they are always wont to have in their mouths, such as these : " I
will be with you always, even to the end of the world." Matth.
xxviii. 20. " Where two or three are gathered together in my
name, there I will be in the midst of you." Matth. xviii. 20. " I
will send to you the Comforter from the Father." John xv. 26.
"Who, when he is come, will lead you into all truth." Johnxvi. 13.
I recognise here the most lucid and certain testimonies of scripture.
But now from hence it follows not that the authority of scripture
depends upon the church ; but, contrariwise, that the authority of
the church depends on scripture. Surely it is a notable circle in
which this argument revolves ! They say that they give authority
to the scripture and canonical books in respect of us ; and yet they
confess that all their authority is derived from scripture. For if
they rely upon the testimonies and sentences of these books, when
they require us to believe in them ; then it is plain that these books,
which lend them credit, had greater authority in themselves, and
were of themselves authentic.
Our fourth argument stands thus : If the scripture have so
great force and virtue in itself, as to draw up our souls to itself,
to infuse into us an intimate persuasion of its truth, and of itself to
commend itself to our belief; then it is certain that it is to us of
itself avroTTio-rov, canonical and authentic. Now the first is true ;
therefore also the second. There is no controversy about the major.
The minor may be confirmed by testimonies of scripture. In Luke
viii. 11 the word of God is compared to seed, and 1 Pet. i. 13 is
called " immortal seed." Now then as seed displays itself, and
issues forth, and bears fruit in its season, so the word of God re
sembles the nature of seed ; it springs up, and breaks forth, and
manifests its energy. Besides, 1 Cor. ii. 4, Paul says : " My
speech and my preaching was not in persuasive words of man s
wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and in power," a\\ ev
ctTrocWfet niWyuaros xal Suva/mews. In Luke xxiv. 32, those two
disciples, to whom Christ appeared on their way to Emmaus, con
versed thus with one another, after Christ had vanished from their
sight : " Did not our heart burn within us, Kaionevrj ?jv ev ?JjuuV,
whilst he spake unto us by the way, and whilst he opened unto us
the scriptures ?" Heb. iv. 12, " The word of God," says the
apostle, " is quick and powerful, ^wv KCU evepyrjs, and quicker than
any two-edged sword, and pierceth even to the dividing asunder
of the soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a
336 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." 1 Cor. xiv.
24, 25, " If all prophesy," says Paul, " and there come in one that
belie veth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged
of all ; and so are the secrets of his heart made manifest, and so,
falling down on his face, he will worship God, and report that God
is in you of a truth." From all these places we understand, that
there is a certain divine force, virtue, and efficacy in scripture, which
reaches not the ears only, but even the soul itself, and penetrates
to the inmost recesses of the heart, and proves the most certain
divinity of scripture. The scripture, therefore, which hath such
a force in itself, and which so openly shews, proves, establishes
itself, and persuades us of its own truth, is by all means of itself
canonical and authentic.
Our fifth argument is taken from the words of Christ, John v.
34, where Christ says : " I receive not witness of men," eyco ov
Trapd avOpwTTov imapTvpiav Xa/mfiavw. Hence we draw an argument
to this effect : Christ is known of himself; he depends not on the
testimony or authority of any man. Therefore, neither does the
scripture. For the authority of scripture is not less than that of
Christ, whose word it is. But here they will object thus : Did not
Christ use the honourable testimony of John ? Why then may not
also the scripture be commended by the testimony of the church ?
I answer, that John did indeed give testimony to Christ, but not
any authority, not even in respect of us. The same may be said
of the church ; that is, that it gives testimony to the scriptures ;
that it commends and declares them authentic, and yet imparts to
them no authority, not even in respect of us. Christ s saying, " I
receive not witness of man," is the same thing as if he had said : I
need not that any should give me authority by his testimony ; I
am sufficiently fortified on all sides by mine own authority ; I will
abundantly gain authority for myself by mine own testimony. As,
therefore, Christ could of himself demonstrate that he was the
Messiah, so the word of Christ can of itself produce the belief that
it is the word of God. Its being commended by the church is not
for the purpose of receiving greater authority, but in order that its
authority may be the more recognised by men. Canus, Lib. n.
cap. 8, seeks to break the force of this testimony, thus : The sense
is, says he, I do not receive witness of man ; that is, I do not need
the witness of any man, but I allege the witness of John for your
sakes. Be it so. Then also it will follow, that neither does
scripture need the witness of the church.
XI.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 337
Our sixth argument is taken from the same chapter, verse 38,
where Christ says : " I have greater testimony than that of John ;"
e^a) imaprvpiav jmei^co Iwdvvou : and then he recites three such
testimonies, namely, his works, the testimony of his Father, and the
scriptures. Hence I conclude thus : If the testimony of scripture
concerning Christ be more certain than the judgment and witness
of John, then is it also much more certain and valid than the
judgment and witness of the church. For the papists dare not say,
that the judgment of the church concerning scripture is more
certain than was that testimony of John concerning Christ. But
the former is true, and therefore also the latter. Nay, the written
word of God is even more certain and firm than a divine revela
tion and a celestial voice : for so we read, 2 Pet. i. 19. Does the
church dare to attribute more to her judgment than to a divine
voice and heavenly revelation ? Peter was with Christ upon the
mount, and there heard the voice of God the Father ; and yet he
says, " We have a more sure word of prophecy," Pefiaiorepov TOV
7Tpo&lt;pr]TtKov \oyov. If then the scripture be more certain than
divine revelations from heaven, much more must it needs be more
certain than the judgment and testimony of the church. Whence
it is plain that no authority can be conceived greater or more
certain than that of scripture. Beza indeed hath translated /3e-
flaiorepov most firm ; but it comes to the same thing : for if
the word of prophecy be most firm, then certainly it is more firm
than any revelation, and contains the highest degree of strength
in itself.
Our seventh argument is taken from 1 Thess. ii. 13, where
Paul addresses the Thessalonians thus : " We give thanks to God
always, because that, when ye received the word of God which ye
heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but (as it is in
truth), the word of God, e^e^acrOe ov \oyov dvOpcoTrwv, d\\d
\oyov Geoy, which also worketh effectually in you that believe."
From this place I argue thus : If the Thessalonians, when they
only heard Paul, received the doctrine of scripture as divine, and
so embraced it, then, without the judgment of the church, the
scripture ought to have a divine authority with us. But the
former is true ; for the Thessalonians had then heard of no pro
phecy or testimony of any church, but had only received the
word from the lips of Paul : therefore also the latter. Ambrose
writes thus upon that place : " They received the word with such
devotion as to prove that they understood it to be the word of
r -i 22
LWHITAKER.]
338 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
God 1 ." But whence could they understand it to be such ? Certainly
from the doctrine itself, and the testimony of the Holy Spirit ; not
from the authority of any church, or of the apostle himself. For
what church could persuade the Thessalonians by the weight of
its testimony to receive Paul, or assent to his discourses as divine ?
The apostle himself was unknown to them, and had nowhere any
authority but on account of that doctrine, the minister and herald of
which he was. Therefore, the doctrine itself gained for him all his
authority and credit. We read in like manner, Gal. iv. 14, " Ye
received me," says Paul, "as an angel of God, yea, as Christ
Jesus." Whose commendation was it, I beseech you, which pro
cured for Paul this authority and dignity with the Galatians ? No
man s. Therefore that doctrine which the apostle brought with
him excited in the strongest manner the minds of the Galatians to
welcome and respect Paul, and sufficiently of itself commended itself
and its minister. So Acts xvii. 11, the Beroeans, when they heard
Paul, examined his teaching not by the judgment of any church, but
by the standard of the scripture itself. It appears, therefore, that
scripture of itself, without the testimony and authority of the
church, hath a divine, canonical and authentic authority even in
respect of us.
Our eighth argument stands thus : The authority of the un
written word did not depend upon the authority of the church.
Therefore neither does the authority of the written word now
depend upon the church. The argument is conclusive, because
the reason is the same in both cases. The major is proved be
cause, when as yet the word was not published in the scriptures
or written documents, God used to speak immediately to the pa
triarchs, and this word was not commended or received by any
authority of the church, but by that of God alone : therefore also
the written word of God should be received in like manner : un
less it be said that it is of less authority since it hath been con
signed to books than it was before ; which is the height of absurdity.
Paul, Rom. ii. 15, affirms of the law, that it is written in our
hearts. I believe the law, therefore, not on account of the testi
mony or judgment of the church, but because we retain the light
of the law impressed and inscribed upon our hearts. Now then,
if the law, which is one portion of the word of God, be acknow
ledged of itself and by its own light, which is impressed upon our
[ x Tanta devotione receperunt verbum, ut probarent se intellexisse esse
Dei verbum. Opp. T. n. App. p. 279. Paris. 1670.]
XI.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 339
souls, and easily proves itself to all, and shews that this is the will
of God ; much more is the gospel sealed in our hearts by the Holy
Spirit, and received on account of the Holy Spirit s authority.
For, if we understand that the law is the will of God, not per
suaded by the - authority of the church, but by the internal light
of the law ; how much more need is there that we be illuminated
by the light of the Holy Spirit, before we believe the gospel ;
since the law is natural, but the gospel transcends all nature, and
therefore needs some greater kind of confirmation !
Our ninth argument is taken from 1 John v. 6, where these
words are found : TO irvev/nd GCTTL TO juaprvpovv, on 7rvevfj.a
ecjTtv rj aXrjOeia. "It is the Spirit that beareth witness that
the Spirit is truth ;" that is, by a metonymy, that the doctrine
delivered by the Spirit is true. The old translator somewhat
otherwise : Spiritus est qui testatur, quoniam Christus est veritas.
But it comes to precisely the same thing. For the sense is plain,
that it is the Spirit which testifies of the Spirit, that is, of the hea
venly doctrine whereof he is the master, and of Christ : where the
testimony of the Spirit in confirming doctrine is established.
Our tenth argument is taken from the same chapter, verse 9,
where these words are contained : "If we receive the witness of
men, the witness of God is greater ;" r\ /aaprvpia TOV Qeov juei^wv:
whence we understand that no testimony can be either greater
or more certain than the divine. But the testimony of the church
is human : for if they would have the testimony of the church to
be divine, they must mean thereby the testimony of the Spirit, and
so they will assert the same thing as we. Thomas Aquinas by " the
testimony of men " in this place understands the testimony of the
prophets ; but the testimony of the church cannot be more certain
than the testimony of the prophets. If, therefore, there be, as Thomas
implies, something greater than the testimony of the prophets, then
it will follow that the testimony of the church is not the greatest
whereby we are convinced of the truth of faith and doctrine.
Our eleventh argument is taken from the last words of the
fifth chapter of the gospel according to St John, which are these :
" If ye believe not Moses writings, how shall ye believe my
et TOIS CKGLVOV y pa/jL^acn /JLTJ TrtcrTefere, TTOOS TO:S e/uots
Trtcrreucrere ; They are Christ s words to the Jews : whence
I conclude thus : They who do not believe the scriptures them
selves, will not even believe the testimony of Christ ; much less
will be capable of being induced to repose faith in the voice and
222
340 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
words of the church. Jansenius, himself a papist, observes that
it is an argument a fortiori, because " as that is firmer which
is consigned to writing, so it is more censurable and a greater
fault, not to believe writings than not to believe words 1 ." And
Theophylact interprets this place in the following manner : " If
ye believe not words written, how shall ye believe my words that
are not written ?" Qu TTicrreJere roTs ypa/jLiuLaui., /ecu TTW? TTL-
GTGUGere roTs ejuo?? cfypatyois pmuLacriv ; It is evident, therefore,
that those who are not moved by the authority of the scriptures
themselves, to embrace them with a pure faith, can be moved
or induced by no other argument or authority to believe.
Stapleton does not touch upon the foregoing arguments, where
by it is plain that our cause is abundantly demonstrated : but now
follow some which he endeavours to obviate. For, Lib. ix. c. 2,
he proposes six arguments of the Protestants, as he calls them,
which he answers severally, c. 3. The first four arguments are
taken from Calvin, Instit. Lib. i. c. 7, 2 the remaining two from
others, which we shall join to the foregoing along with the de
fence of them.
Calvin s first argument, therefore, shall be our twelfth, which
is this : If the canon of scripture depend upon the determination
of the church, then the authority, verity, and credibility of all
the promises of salvation and eternal life contained in scripture
depend upon a human judgment ; because we believe those pro
mises on account of the canonical authority of the scriptures in
which they are contained. But it is absurd, that the promises
of God should depend upon men, that the eternal truth of God
should rest upon the will of man, because then our consciences
can have no confidence, no security. Therefore the canon of scrip
ture does not depend upon the determination of the church.
Stapleton answers, that the judgment of the church in this matter
is not merely human, but divine and infallible, so as that the faithful
soul may most safely acquiesce in it, and therefore that Calvin s
argument is inconsequential. But what is the meaning of this as
sertion, that the church s judgment is not merely human ? Be it
so. But is it merely divine ? For surely it is requisite that the
truth of the promises of eternal life should be propped and sup
ported by a testimony purely divine. This Stapleton does not
openly affirm, but afterwards seems to wish it to be understood,
[ l Comment, in Concord. Evang. p. 241. Lugd. 1606.]
[ 2 Tom. i. pp. 57 62. ed. Tholuck. Berol. 1834.]
XI.l QUESTION THE THIRD. 341
when he says that it is divine and infallible, and that faithful souls
may safely acquiesce in it. But here he does not answer candidly ;
for the question is, whether those things which are promised in the
ecriptures are believed by us to be true solely on account of the
church s authority, or on account of some more certain judgment ?
Stapleton says that the judgment of the church is divine, because
God speaks through the church, and that so we may acquiesce in
the voice and sentence of the church. Be it so ; let the judgment
of the church be divine. Well, is not the judgment of scripture
divine also in Stapleton s opinion? Why then may we not ac
quiesce in the judgment of scripture as well as in that of the
church ? But indeed, when he answers thus, he accomplishes no
thing. For the question is not, whether the judgment of the
church be divine in itself, but whence it is that we are assured
of its being so ; unless perhaps he has forgotten his own Thesis.
This latter question he gives us no information upon. He says
only, that God speaks through the church, which we, for our
parts, confess ; but we ask further, whether those things which
God speaks and teaches through the church are believed by us to be
true solely on account of the church s authority, and whether it be
not proved in some other way than by the church s own testimony
that God speaks through the church ? By not telling us this, nor
shewing how we know the church s judgment to be divine, he is
guilty of manifest tergiversation, and fails to prove that which was
the real question. For there is a wide difference between these
two propositions ; God speaks through the church, and, We can
not be otherwise certain of the scriptures and doctrine of God,
but because the church attests them.
Cochlseus indeed, of whom we have heard before, asserts that
we cannot be certainly persuaded of the doctrine of scripture other
wise than by the testimony of the church. For that dishonest writer
enumerates many strange and incredible things in scripture, which
he falsely pretends to be believed solely on account of the church s
authority. Stapleton thinks in the same way, and speaks in the same
way in this chapter : for he says, that the church does not make the
contents of scripture true, yet does cause them to be believed by
us as true. From which statement it is apparent that Calvin s
objection is just, that in this way our whole faith depends upon
the authority and human judgment of the church. But the scrip
ture teaches us far otherwise and better. For thus we read,
1 John, v. 10, " He who believeth not God, makes him a liar."
342 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
He therefore who no otherwise believes God promising, but on ac
count of the authority of some one else, certainly believes that
other person more than God, and so makes God a liar. Besides,
in this way, the church would be mistress of our faith, which is
repugnant to that saying of Paul, 2 Cor. i. 24, " We have not do
minion over," ov Kvpievo/uLev, " your faith ;" rfi Triarei eo-r^/care,
" by faith ye stand." We stand, indeed, by faith, and that is the
gift of the Holy Ghost, not of the church. We see, therefore, that
it is not on the church s, but on the Holy Spirit s authority, that
we persevere stable and constant in the faith, and fall not from
divine grace. Besides, by this way of reasoning, it would follow
that the ultimate issue and resolution (as they call it) of our faith
would be into the voice and judgment of the church. This indeed
some of the schoolmen, and those of great name too, have long
since not been ashamed to affirm in express words ; but the later
papists deny it, and Stapleton himself elsewhere disputes against
it. But how can it be denied, if, as Stapleton will have it, we be
lieve whatever we believe on the church s authority ? For if the
judgment of the church causes the books of scripture to be canoni
cal to us, then it certainly is the cause why those things which are
contained in scripture are judged and believed true by us. And
if this be so, is not our faith ultimately resolved into the voice of
the church ? On account of the church we believe the scriptures
and every thing contained in scripture ; for this is the meaning of
Stapleton s assertion that the church causes those things which are
found in scripture to be believed and held for true. Thus he does
not perceive that he overturns his own opinion. Besides, he says
that the judgment of the church is divine and infallible, and that
the minds of the faithful may safely acquiesce in it. Why, there
fore, should he not also concede, that the ultimate resolution of faith
is placed in the judgment of the church ?
From what hath been said it appears that all the promises of
scripture are, in Stapleton s opinion, confirmed by no other au
thority than that of the church; whence what Calvin says follows,
that our consciences are despoiled of all security, and that nothing
certain is left to us in religion. But why, asks Stapleton, when the
testimony of the church is divine ? I answer : We confess, indeed,
that the testimony of the church is divine in a certain sense ; not
absolutely, but in some respects, that is, so far as it agrees with
scripture, with the Holy Spirit, with the will of God. But then
we say that that judgment is not to be received on account of the
XI.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 343
church, but on account of the will and authority of God with which
it agrees. Alphonsus de Castro, Lib. i. c. 8 l , answers this argument
of Calvin s in another way ; namely, that we owe it to the church
indeed that we know what is divine scripture, but that afterwards,
when we have been assured that scripture is divine, then we have
from itself the obligation to believe it thoroughly in all respects.
lie thought that which Stapleton hath ventured to defend grossly
absurd. But there is this also in de Castro s answer, that, if the
church make scripture authentic to us, then it also makes authentic
to us, and true, all the things which are written and taught in
scripture. Whereupon Stapleton did not choose to make use of
this answer ; and preferred openly enunciating its consequence, that
all things are believed by us on account of the church. What
Stapleton subjoins out of Ephes. iv. 11, that Christ left to his
church apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, doctors, that the
people might be kept in the faith, and not carried about with every
wind of doctrine, is of absolutely no weight. For although the
people be retained by pastors and doctors in faith and obedience, it
does not therefore follow that it is solely by their authority that
the permanence of the people in their duty is effected. For the
Christian people acknowledges and reverences a greater authority
than that of the pastors, namely, that of God himself; which unless
it were of more avail than that of the. pastors, the people could
never be so retained. So, in precisely the same way, the people
are kept in peace by the magistrates and ministers of the king ;
but yet there is a greater authority than that of these magistrates,
on account of which they are kept in peace, namely, that of the
prince himself, whose authority and dominion extends far and wide
through all the parts of his realm.
Our thirteenth argument, which was Calvin s second, is this : In
this way the truth of divine scripture would be exposed to the
mockeries of impious men, and would in great measure be brought
into even general suspicion, as if it had no other authority than
such as depended precariously upon the good will of men, if it be
said to be received only on account of the judgment of the church.
Therefore, &c. And this is most true ; for who fails to perceive
that, in this way, scripture is exposed to infinite reproaches and
calumnies from men? Here Stapleton, overcome by the force of
truth, is compelled even against his will to speak the truth. He
says that it is not by the good will of men, but the testimony of
l [Opp. Paris. 1571. p. 46.]
344 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
God speaking through men, that both the scriptures and all the
rest of our faith have their authority. This we willingly embrace.
For we confess that the scripture hath its authority from the testi
mony of God ; and we confess also what he adds, that God speaks
through men : for God uses no other ministry than that of men,
when he now addresses us in this world. But of what sort is this
testimony of God speaking through men ? Let them tell us, and
they will find that the testimony of God speaking through the
church is one thing, and the church itself another. And if they
shall say that we believe the church on account of the testimony of
God, what else do they say but what we say also ? But neverthe
less we say further, that we ought to believe those things which
God speaks through the church, on account of the authority of
God himself who speaks, not on account of the authority of the
church through which he speaks. Stapleton, under the pressure of
this argument, betakes himself for refuge to his old distinction.
The scripture, says he, does not receive from the church any pre
carious authority, since it depends not upon the church in itself, but
only in respect of us ; when yet he had said only a little before,
that we believe on the testimony of God speaking through the church.
Doubtless that authority cannot be called precarious, which rests
upon divine testimony. The man absolutely knows not whither to
turn himself, and yet he calls Calvin a caviller. Then he tells us
how scripture hath authority with us by means of the church ;
because God speaking through the church commends it to us, and
makes it conspicuous. If he distinguishes God speaking through
the church from the church itself, we concede all this, and then
conclude that scripture rests upon the authority of God. If he do
not distinguish, then he makes God speaking through the church,
and the church through which he speaks, the same thing ; that is, he
confounds the principal efficient cause with the instrument. I de
mand of him, therefore, whether he distinguishes that testimony of
God speaking through the church from the actual judgment and
testimony of the church, and makes the former something different
from the latter ; or confounds the one with the . other, and deter
mines them to be absolutely the same ? If he distinguish, then he
concedes what we wish, namely, that the authority of scripture in
respect of us rests upon the testimony of God. But if he confound
them, then he absurdly commingles things which ought to be kept
separate. For he who speaks is one, and that through whom he
speaks is another. If therefore God speaks through the church,
XI.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 345
this is not properly the witness of the church, but rather of God.
Now if it be the testimony of God himself, it follows that God, not
the church, gives authority to the scripture even in respect of us.
And now we have said enough upon this argument.
Our fourteenth argument, which is Calvin s third, runs thus :
The testimony of the Holy Spirit is more excellent than all au
thority : therefore the same Spirit can best persuade us that it is
God who spoke in the scriptures. We say that the scriptures are
proved to us by the witness of the Holy Spirit: therefore, we
apply the most certain testimony, even in the judgment of our
adversaries themselves, who dare not deny this. For God is alone
a fit witness of himself. Stapleton concedes that the testimony of
the Holy Spirit is the best and most certain ; but he concedes this
only in words, and in reality breaks down the whole force of this
testimony. For he subjoins that this testimony of the Spirit should
be public and manifest, not private and secret, lest seducing spirits
should introduce themselves under the title of the Spirit of God ;
and this public testimony of the Spirit he would have to be the
judgment of the church. Here meanwhile he is compelled to con
fess, that there is need of the witness of the Spirit, and that this
witness of the Holy Spirit is the most certain testimony. Thus
then he affirms a testimony of the Spirit, but of such a kind as
does not really exist, namely, a public and manifest one ; so as that
the external judgment of the church shall be holden to be the public
judgment of the Spirit, and whatever the church determines and
deems, this shall be believed to proceed from the testimony of the
Spirit. Christ instituted no such tribunal, as will be shewn here
after in its place. For I ask, whether it be public and manifest to
all, or only to a few ? Certainly, it is not manifest to all publicly ;
for then all would acknowledge and submit to it. If they say, it
is public to a few, I would fain know of them how it can be called
public and manifest at all ? But I demand besides, who these few
are to whom it is public ? They will say, to the pastors, or, under
the pressure of argument, to the pope alone. But we seek for such
a public judgment as is open to all the faithful ; and Stapleton should
either shew us such, or confess that he is playing with us in a
serious matter. For our dispute is not about the question how the
pope or the pastors only, but how all the faithful universally, may
understand the scriptures to have divine authority. Wherefore
they are at length reduced to confess that they rest upon a dif
ferent testimony from that of the church, and that a private one,
346 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
since it lies hidden in a single person. But it is absurd to dream of
any public tribunal of the Holy Spirit ; yea, the scriptures them
selves plainly teach the contrary, that the testimony of the Holy
Spirit is only private, internal, and secret. In 2 Cor. i. 21, Paul
says that God hath sealed us, and given to us the earnest of the
Spirit : but where ? in our hearts. In Horn. viii. 16, the Spirit of
God is said to testify not openly, not externally, but internally,
that is, in our spirit, that we are the sons of God. In 1 John v.
10, he who believes upon the Son of God is said to have the testi
mony, not in any external tribunal, but ei/ eayrw, in himself. In
Matth. xvi. 17, Christ says to Peter, " Flesh and blood have not
revealed this unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." In
which words he unquestionably implies that the persuasion was
wrought, and the revelation made inwardly to Peter, by the Holy
Spirit, which he had just before confessed concerning Christ. In
1 John ii. 20, John addresses all the faithful in this manner : "Ye
have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things."
f,ue7s ^pia/Jia e^ere, KCLI oica.T TravTa. And at verse twenty-seven
of the same chapter, " The anointing which ye have received re-
maineth in you," ev vfuv juevei. He does not mean any external
and manifest unction, but an internal one, entering in our minds
and establishing all truth to us internally. So Isaiah lix. 21 :
"My Spirit, which is within you," &c. And it is certainly re
pugnant to the nature of the Spirit, that this testimony should be
external and public. For such as the Spirit is himself, such should
also be his testimony. But the Spirit himself is hidden and secret,
and blows where he listeth, as Christ taught Nicodemus, John iii.
8 : therefore his testimony also is occult ; yet occult in such a sense
as to admit of its being clear and certain to those persons them
selves who are anointed with this unction. Indeed this is so mani
fest that the very papists themselves are compelled to acknowledge
it. For so Hosius in his Confessio Petrocoviensis, cap. 16 : " Now
we willingly concede that the gospels are to be received as the
word of God, who teaches and reveals truth to us internally, and
that they are not to be believed but on account of the voice of God
speaking to us within 1 ." But certainly the testimony of the church
cannot be called the testimony of the Spirit in a strict sense, but
only by way of similitude, or in so far as it agrees and harmonises
[* Nos vero libenter concedimus, accipienda esse evangelia ut yerbum
Dei intus docentis et revelantis, neque credendum illis esse nisi propter Dei
yocern intus loquentis. p. 21. Opp. Lugd. 1564.]
XI.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 347
with the testimony of the Spirit. For we do not deny that the public
judgment of the church may agree with the secret testimony of the
Holy Spirit ; but we say that then it is received for the sake of
the testimony of the Spirit, not for the sake of the church.
But as to -what Stapleton subjoins, that the public judgment is
necessary on account of false and seductive spirits ; we answer, that
this man would fain seem wiser than Christ. For Christ, when he
had a full prospect and foresight of this evil, nevertheless left no
remedy against these deceiving spirits except the scripture, in whose
judgment whosoever refuses to acquiesce will certainly contemn
equally the authority of the church. He slanderously pretends also
that we make the judgment of the church merely human ; which is
not true. For although we say that the church is composed of
men, yet when its testimony agrees with the judgment and testi
mony of the Holy Spirit, and is in harmony with the word of God,
we then confess that it is divine. Nevertheless we do indeed in the
meanwhile say, that it is then believed not on account of the church
itself and its authority, but on account of that truth which it follows
and pronounces, and on account of the authority of God, whom, in
that judgment, the church merely serves as a ministering agent.
But all are not churches of God, which assume and arrogate to
themselves this privilege, but those only which determine what
Christ determined, and teach the same as he taught. But our dis
pute here is not concerning the true church, what and of what sort
it is : this is the sole question before us, whence we are assured
that the judgment of the church is true and divine ? This is the
very point at issue. Let them then produce some argument
whereby this may be cleared up for us ; otherwise they do nothing.
But assuredly they can produce none ; nor hath Stapleton himself
produced any, but only taken things for granted. He only says
that we are impudent, if we do not believe, and unworthy of being
disputed with ; or else proves the conclusion by itself after this
fashion : It is true that the judgment of the church is divine,
because the church itself says so ; it is governed by the Holy
Ghost, because it says that it is so governed. We may, however,
much more justly reply, that they are impudent if they do not
believe the scripture, and that the scripture is divine because it
affirms itself to be so. Nor is there any reason why we should say
more upon this argument.
Now follows our fifteenth argument, the fourth of Calvin, which
is this: The church is said (Ephes. ii. 20) to be built upon the
348 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
foundation of the prophets and apostles, that is, upon the prophetic
and apostolic doctrine : therefore the prophetic and apostolic doc
trine, that is, the whole scripture, and the approbation of the same,
preceded the church, without which the church could never have
existed. Stapleton answers, that Calvin misleads his reader by a
double equivocation concealed in these two words, foundation and
church. For he says, in the first place, that the foundation in
this place does not signify the doctrine written by the prophets and
apostles, but their preaching : next, he says, that by the church in
this place are not understood the masters, prelates, and superiors, but
the faithful themselves as they constitute the body of the church.
As to the first equivocation, I return a fourfold answer. First,
what if we concede, that in this place the foundation of the prophets
and apostles is meant of the apostolic and prophetic preaching ? This
will avail nothing against us : for the preaching of the prophets and
apostles was precisely the same as the scripture itself. This is mani
fest from Acts xxvi. 22, where Paul speaks thus : " Having obtained
help from God, I continue unto this day, witnessing these things to
both small and great, saying none other things than those which
the prophets and Moses did say should come ;" ovSev e/cros- ^eycov.
Whatever, therefore, the apostles taught, they derived from the
prophets and Moses, and beyond them they taught nothing. The
same may also be confirmed from Acts xvii. 11, where the Beroeans
are said to have examined the preaching of the apostles by the
scripture; which they certainly could not have done if they had
preached anything beside or without the scripture. Secondly, I
say that the foundation of the prophets and apostles in this place
actually does denote the scripture : which I prove from the cir
cumstance that Paul here joins the prophets with the apostles.
Now the prophets were not then preaching, but only their writings
were extant. Stapleton foresaw this, and therefore determines
that, in this place, it is not the prophets of the old Testament that
are meant and designed, but those of the new, who lived and
taught along with the apostles, such as those who are mentioned,
Ephes. iv. 11, and 1 Cor. xii. 28. But under the name of pro
phetic doctrine always in the scriptures the whole doctrine of the
old Testament is wont to be understood. So 2 Pet. i. 16, where the
apostle says: "We have a more sure word of prophecy;" e^ojuiei/
fiefiaioTepov TOV 7rpo&lt;pr)TiKoi&gt; \oyov. So Heb. i. 1, where the
apostle says that God had spoken formerly in divers ways to the
fathers by the prophets. So Rom. i. 2, where Paul says, that
XI.J QUESTION THE THIRD. 349
God had before promised the Gospel did TWV Trpcxprjrcov avrou e r
ypa&lt;pais dyiais. So Luke i. 70, where Zacharias, the father of
John the Baptist, says that God had " raised up a horn of salvation
for us in the house of his servant David, as he had spoken Sia
0"To/xctTos TUJI&gt; ayiwv TUDV air aiwvos 7rpo&lt;pt]Tcou OIUTOV." There
fore in this place also, under the name of prophets are understood
the old, and not the new prophets. For if Paul had understood
those prophets of the new Testament, why not equally mention the
evangelists, pastors and doctors, who were also preaching the word,
and united their labours with the apostles and prophets in this
work? Chrysostom opposes Stapleton, and teaches us that none
other are here understood but the ancient prophets : for he says
that the apostles were posterior in time to those prophets whom
Paul names here, and yet are set in the first place : Upwrov
TiOrjcri TOVS d.TTo&lt;jTo\ov&lt;s ecr^aTof? arras rots ^oi/ots 1 . Thirdly,
I sav, that the preaching of the apostles and prophets, as it was
their action, continued only a short time. But the apostle speaks
of a perpetual foundation which should consist and endure to the
end of the world, and upon which the church of all times should
always rest. This is the doctrine which the apostles first delivered
by word of mouth, and afterwards in books that were to remain for
ever. How then can the church be now founded upon that preach
ing, which hath ceased and come to an end many ages ago?
Fourthly, Ambrose says that by the foundation in this place is
understood the old and ne.w Testaments, and that other prophets
are here designated than those of whom we read Ephes. iv. 11,
and 1 Cor. xii. 28. The same is the opinion of Thomas Aquinas ;
the same of Dionysius the Carthusian, and of some other papists :
so that we may perceive that Stapleton is here at variance with
his own men. We have discussed the first ambiguity ; it remains
that we come now to the second.
The second equivocation which Stapleton remarks in Calvin s
argument is in the word Church. Stapleton wishes to understand
in this place by the church, not the pastors, but the people. But it
is plain that the apostle is here laying the foundation of the whole
church, and therefore of the pastors also ; unless perhaps they are no
members of the church. Indeed it would be absurd that he should
except the masters and prelates of the church more than the rest of
the faithful, as if they had another foundation to rest upon besides
the prophetic and apostolic doctrine; whereas absolutely all the
[! In Ephes. Horn. vi. T. n. p. 39. B.j
350 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [dl.
faithful are settled upon this foundation, of which Christ is the
corner-stone. Since this is so, it is idle in Stapleton to say, that
the church, as it denotes the body of the faithful, is founded upon
the doctrine of the apostles and prophets, but not as it denotes the
prelates and governors. Hence it is manifest that Calvin s reason
ing stands firm ; namely, scripture is the foundation of the church ;
therefore, scripture and its approbation is prior to the church.
But Stapleton still defends himself with that worn-out distinction.
He says that the scripture is posterior to the church in regard of its
acceptation in respect of us : as if approbation and acceptation were
not the same thing, or scripture were not then accepted when it
was approved. The adversary, therefore, cannot elude Calvin s
argument by this distinction. What he subjoins, namely, that the
pastors are known before the scriptures, is utterly false, and a bare
faced begging of the question. For we ought first to know how
good pastors should feed their flocks, (a point of knowledge only
attainable from scripture, which most clearly describes the pastoral
office), before we can recognise the actual good pastors. So we
know a governor, a general, a professor of any art, from the matters
themselves which they handle, and which are the subject of their
art, and in no other way : unless, indeed, he understand merely a
confused sort of knowledge, such as that of which Aristotle speaks,
Physic, i. cap. 1. But that is rather a sort of mere uncertain con
jecture or guess, than any clear and certain knowledge. As to his
remark that the church itself also, in the sense of the pastors and
rulers, is sometimes compared to a foundation and a gate, as by
Augustine in his exposition of Ps. Ixxxviii. we allow it and concede
it readily : but the reason is because that by their constancy the
weaker are sustained and strengthened ; by their preaching the
gates of heaven are, in a manner, opened, so as that, without the
ministry of the word, no access to salvation could lie open to any
one. In the meanwhile, however, what we have before laid down
is true, that the pastors are founded upon the word, and it cannot
be determined otherwise than out of the word itself, who are true,
good, and faithful. Therefore it must ever be held as most true,
that the approbation of scripture precedes this discrimination of the
pastors. For if we approve them for pastors, then before that, and
much rather, must we approve the scriptures, which have made
them pastors, and taught us not only what their office is, but also
our own; and without which neither would they know how to feed the
flock, nor could we esteem them as our pastors. In like manner,
XI.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 351
since the church depends upon the scriptures, the knowledge of the
scriptures must needs precede the knowledge of the church.
Our sixteenth argument is this : Scripture in the doctrine of
religion hath the rank and place of a principle ; all its declarations
are, as it were, axioms and most certain principles, which neither
can, nor ought to be proved by other things, but all other things
to be proved and confirmed by them. If this hold in human
sciences, whereof men are the authors, much more does it hold
in scripture, whose author is the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of truth.
Whoever is the author of this argument, it is most true. It seems
to be Musculus s. Stapleton answers by a distinction (for he is
very copious in distinctions, which he generally abuses greatly,) in
this manner : The principles of sciences, says he, are in themselves
indemonstrable with respect to the nature of things; but in respect
of us they may be demonstrated, on account of our great dulness,
by a demonstration shewing simply that they exist. Such is the
case of scripture. I answer : We confess that the scriptures may
be demonstrated by an argument a posteriori; and that this argu
ment is especially useful to us on account of the slenderness of our
intellect; and so that we are much aided in this matter by the
voice and testimony of the church. But nevertheless we deny that
the scripture needs this testimony of the church, or that it is on no
other grounds authentic to us. We receive indeed the axioms of
the sciences, when they are first delivered, and believe them to be
true, induced by the words and authority of the professors of those
sciences : but when we understand the reason of them, then we
believe rather on account of the plain and necessary truth of the
axioms themselves, which we perceive ; for they have an infallible
reason in themselves which commends them to our belief. The
existence of the principles of the sciences may be explained to us ;
but are they understood to be true no otherwise than because the
professors have so delivered them ? Yea, the axioms themselves
mutually demonstrate each other. In like manner, the scriptures
may be illustrated and commended by the voice of the church,
although they are in themselves most firm and certain principles,
which are both proved by the authority of God himself, and fortify
each other by their mutual testimony. Stapleton subjoins that the
scripture is in such a sense a principle in religion as yet to allow
that the church s voice is prior to it. Which is utterly false, since
all the voice of the church arises from the scripture. Besides, that
which is taught is always prior to that which teaches. Now the
352 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
scripture is taught, and the church teaches : therefore the scripture
is prior to the church.
But Stapleton proceeds, and proves that the church is prior
to the scripture, and even of greater authority ; because the scrip
ture (says he) is one of those things which are believed ; but
the church is the rule of all those things which are believed.
Where we may observe a two-fold self-contradiction. The first
is, that whereas, in the chapter immediately preceding, he had
denied that the scripture was believed, and said that though we
professed in the Creed a belief in the church, we did not in the scrip
ture ; now, on the contrary, he says that the scripture is one of
the things believed, and so appertains to the Creed. Thus does he
contradict himself, nor attend at all to what he says. The second
is, that he says that the scripture is one of the things to be believed,
and, therefore, cannot be the rule of those things which are be
lieved; while yet he determines the church to be that rule, although
it be itself one of the things which are believed. For do we not
plainly in the Creed profess that we believe in the catholic church ?
If, therefore, scripture be not the rule of faith, because it is an
article of faith, why does not the same argument hold also against
the church ? But is the voice of the church indeed the rule of
faith? Yea, rather, on the contrary, scripture is the rule of the
church. Does scripture follow the voice of the church, or the con
trary ? These men themselves say that the scripture is not squared
to the voice of the church, but the testimony of the church to
scripture ; so as that, since it is canonical scripture, therefore the
church can do no otherwise than declare it to be scripture. Thus
the church is not the rule, but a thing directed by the rule. The
scripture itself is the rule of faith, as we shall hereafter shew
more clearly : for the voice of the church ought to be governed by
scripture, and the church is the effect of faith, and therefore cannot
be the rule of faith. For the church is the multitude of the faith
ful ; and therefore ought to be governed by faith, to follow faith,
to depend upon the rule of faith, and adjust all things by it. But
the voice of the church is an act of the church, and posterior to the
church. The voice of the church is the voice of men : but the rule
of faith is the voice of God. Thus are they not ashamed of any
absurdity or blasphemy : to such a pitch of desperation are they
come. But we have spent words enough upon this argument.
Now follows our seventeenth argument, which stands thus : The
church is subject to the scripture ; therefore it ought not to judge
XI.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 353
of scripture. The argument is perfectly conclusive, if we under
stand an authoritative judgment, as the lawyers express it, which is
what the papists would have. The antecedent is proved by a two
fold testimony of Augustine. The first is contained in his treatise
against Faustus- the Manichee, Lib. XL c. 5, where Augustine says
that " the scripture is settled upon a certain lofty throne to com
mand the service of every faithful and pious understanding 1 ." The
second is in his book de Vera Religione, c. 31, where the same
Augustine says that "it is lawful for pure minds to know the eternal
law of God, but not lawful to judge it." Here also Stapleton seeks
to escape under the screen of one of his customary distinctions.
He says that the church, as it denotes the body of the faithful, is
subject to the scriptures ; but, as it denotes the pastors, governors,
and prelates, is not subject, because they rather judge of the scrip
ture not yet accepted, in order to its acceptation : and thus he
seeks to elude both passages from Augustine. But Augustine un
doubtedly speaks of the whole body of the church, when ho says
that every faithful understanding should serve the scriptures ; in
which words he embraces the bishops and prelates. And certainly
in that chapter he speaks especially of those whose office it is to
expound the scriptures, that is, of the pastors themselves. Are not
these also obliged to be subject to the scriptures, and to submit
their understandings to them ? See what things these popish pre
lates arrogate to themselves ! Augustine therefore would not have
even these exercise what is called an authoritative judgment upon
scripture, but rather do it service. Next, as to his assertion that
it is the privilege of the pastors to judge of scripture not yet
accepted ; I demand whether scripture be yet accepted or no ?
They cannot deny that scripture hath been long ago accepted. It
follows, therefore, that this judgment of the church is at an end.
Nor is the sense of Augustine different in the second passage, as
may easily be perceived from observing his own words. He says
that the church does not judge the scripture (which he calls the
law, rule, and truth), but only according to the scripture. For he
uses there a similitude taken from the civil laws, which agrees ex
cellently well with our defence. "Just as it happens in the case of
temporal laws (says Augustine), although men judge of them when
they institute them, yet when they are instituted and confirmed, it
will not be lawful even for the judge to judge concerning them,
[} Excellentia canonicse auctoritatis veteris et novi Testament! . . . tan-
quam in sede quadam sublimiter constituta est, cui serviat omnis fidelis et
plus intellectus. Cont. Faust. Manich. xi. c. 5. T. x. p. 267.]
[WHITAKER.]
354 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cil.
but according to them 1 ;" the same is the case of the divine
law. For such is the gist of his comparison. But who hath
authority to establish divine laws ? Not men, but God alone. If
therefore God hath made and promulgated these laws, then they
are laws without the judgment and acceptation of the church. For
asmuch then as the scriptures are made and promulgated by God,
they ought not to be subjected to human judgment, nor can any
one lawfully sit in judgment upon them. God hath established
these laws. It is our part to receive, acknowledge, venerate, obey,
submit ourselves to them, and judge of every thing according to
them, not to exercise judgment upon them. And this all men with
out exception are bound to do ; yea, the prelates themselves, and
those who hold the highest authority in the church.
But here he declares that he will immediately close the mouths
of us heretics. Let us attend and see how he performs his promise.
Calvin, Instit. Lib. i. c. 9, disputes against those who introduce en
thusiasm, and shews that their enthusiastical spirits, of which they
boast, are to be judged of by the scriptures. They say, that it is
unjust to subject the Holy Spirit to scripture. Calvin answers, that
no injury is done to the Holy Spirit, when he is examined by scrip
ture, because in that way he is tried by no foreign rule, but only
compared with himself. Now he is always equal to, and like him
self; he is in every respect at perfect harmony and agreement with
himself, and nowhere at variance with himself: this, therefore, is
not injurious to him. These things are most truly spoken by
Calvin. Hence Stapleton gathers this argument : As, says he, it
is no insult to the Holy Spirit to be examined by the scriptures, so
it is not an insult to the scripture to be examined by the voice and
testimony of the church. But this reasoning of Stapleton will then
only be conclusive, when he shall have shewn and proved, that the
analogy and proportion of the church to the scripture is similar to
that of the scripture to the Holy Spirit; which is what he will never
be able to prove. For the whole scripture is divinely inspired, and
ever in harmony with the Spirit. Therefore every spirit which
agrees not with scripture is to be rejected : but all churches do not
agree with scripture. Here then halts this so boasted argument
of Stapleton s, wherewith he hoped to be able to close our mouths.
[ x Sicut in istis temporalibus legibus, quanquam de his homines judiccnt
cum eas instituunt, tamen cum fuerint institutes atque firmatfe, non licebit
judici de ipsis judicare, sed secundum ipsas JEternam igitur legem
mundis animis fas est cognoscere; judicare non fas est. August. De Ver.
Relig. cap. xxxi. T. i. p. 977.]
XI.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 355
And thus far Stapleton, who is bold in words, but in argument
loose and weak, as we have seen. Let us now dismiss him.
Now follows our eighteenth argument, which is this : The pa
pists say that we believe the scripture upon the word and authority
of the church. I ask, therefore, what sort of faith is this, whe
ther acquired or infused ? They call that acquired which is gained
by our own exertions, and human topics of persuasion ; that infused,
which the Holy Spirit hath disseminated and inspired into our
hearts. If they say that it is acquired (as they must needs say,
because the authority of the church is in the place of an external
means of persuasion), I say, that is not sufficient of itself to pro
duce in us a certain conviction ; but in order that we should believe
any thing firmly, there is need of the internal infusion of the Spirit.
This appears readily from the following passages. Deut. xxix. 4 :
"Ye have seen all these miracles," says Moses to the Israelites;
"but God hath not given you a mind to understand, ejes to see,
and ears to hear, unto this day." Whence we perceive that we
believe nothing as we ought without infused faith, not even things
the most manifest, such as were the miracles which Moses mentions.
Matth. xvi. 17: "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona, because flesh
and blood hath not revealed these things unto thee, but my Father
which is in heaven," saith Christ to Peter. Peter, indeed, had
heard John the Baptist; he had heard Christ himself, and had
seen many of his miracles : yet Peter nevertheless could not be
lieve before a divine revelation was added to all this ; and therefore
Christ attributes the whole of Peter s faith to revelation. To the
same effect is what we read of Lydia, Acts xvi. 14, whose heart
God is said to have opened. 1 Cor. xii. 3 : "No one," says Paul,
" can call Jesus Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." And, verse 9 of
the same chapter, faith is reckoned amongst the gifts (^apiaimara)
of the Holy Spirit ; and he speaks there of justifying faith, not of
the faith of miracles. From these premises it is manifest that the
faith upon which we rest is infused, and not acquired. But if they
say that we believe the scriptures by an infused faith, they say
precisely the same as we. For what else is that infused faith but
the testimony of the Holy Spirit, on account of which we believe
even the scriptures and the doctrine of scripture, and which seals
the whole saving truth of scripture in our hearts?
Our nineteenth argument is taken from the authority of the
fathers, who testify that the scripture and its truth are no other
wise ascertained for us, and can no otherwise be confirmed in our
souls, but by the witness of the Holy Spirit. There is a notable
232
356 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
passage of Augustine s, Confession. Lib. xi. c. 3 : "I would hear
and understand," says he, addressing God, " how thou madest
heaven and earth. Moses wrote this : he wrote, and departed : he
passed from hence to thee ; nor is he now before me. For, if he
were, I would hold him, and ask him, and beseech him for thy
sake, to unfold these things to me, and I would lend the ears of
my body to the sounds which should issue from his lips. But if he
were to speak in the Hebrew tongue, it would strike my senses in
vain ; nor would any of his discourse reach my understanding : but if
he spoke in Latin, I should know what he said. But how should I
know whether he spoke the truth ? And even if I knew this, should
I know it from him ? Surely within, inwardly in the home of my
thoughts, truth, which is neither Hebrew, nor Greek, nor Latin,
nor barbarian, without the organs of mouth or tongue, without the
sound of syllables, would say, He speaks the truth ; and I, ren
dered certain immediately, should say confidently to that man of
thine, Thou speakest truth. Since then I cannot interrogate him,
thee I entreat, O Truth, filled with whom he uttered words of
truth ; thee, O my God, I entreat, have mercy on my sins, and do
thou, who didst grant to him thy servant to speak these things,
grant to me also to understand them 1 ." Thus Augustine. In which
place he teaches us, that that public and external judgment of
the church, which the papists have so often in their mouths, hath
not strength sufficient to engender faith. For they will not, I
suppose, attribute more to the church than to Moses and the pro
phets. If therefore, although Moses and the prophets too were to
rise from the dead and declare that what they wrote was true, yet
their testimony would not suffice us for faith, but we should require
in addition the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit, and a divine
[! Audiam et intelligam quomodo fecisti ccelum et terrain. Scripsit hoc
Moses, scripsit et abiit ; transivit hinc ad te. Neque etiam mine ante me
est : nam si esset, tenorem eum, et rogarem eum, et per te obsecrarem, ut
mini ista panderet, et prseberem aures corporis mei sonis erumpentibus ex
ore ejus. At si Hebrsea voce loqueretur, frustra pulsaret sensum meum, nee
inde mentem meam quicquam tangeret. Si autem Latine, scirem quid
diceret: sed unde scirem an vera diceret? Quod si et hoc scirem, num
ab illo scirem? Intus utique mihi, intus in domicilio cogitationis, nee
Hebrcea nee Grseca nee Latina nee barbara veritas sine oris et linguae organis,
sine strepitu syllabarum diceret, Verum dicit; et ego statimcertus confidenter
illi homini tuo dicerem, Verum dicis. Cum ergo ilium interrogare non possum,
te, quo plerms vera dixit, Veritas, rogo ; te, Deus meus, rogo, parce peccatis
meis, et qui illi servo tuo dedisti heec dicere, da et mihi hsec intelligere. Aug.
Confess, xi. iii. T. i. p. 232.]
XI.] QUESTION THE THIRD. 357
persuasion of the truth itself; then certainly neither shall we believe
the church s testimony, unless the same testimony of the Holy
Spirit be, in the same manner, added.
The same Augustine says also, in his book Contra Epist. Fund.
c. 14, that, " in order that we may obtain an understanding of what
we believe, it is requisite that our minds should be inwardly confirmed
and illuminated by the Deity himself 2 ." And in his book De Vera
Relifjione^ c. 31, he writes thus, as we have just heard : " It is law
ful for pure minds to understand the eternal law [of God], but to
judge it is unlawful 3 ." Where then are those who arrogate to them
selves this judicial power, which they would exercise upon the scrip
tures, whose authority is supreme ? Basil, upon Ps. 115, writes of
faith thus beautifully and truly : " Faith," says he, " is that which
draws the soul to assent by a force transcending the methods of
logic : faith is that produced, not by the necessary demonstrations
of geometry, but by the energy of the Holy Spirit 4 ." Thus we
believe not till the Holy Ghost not the church hath inspired us
with faith. Hereto appertains also what Ambrose says, De Fide
ad Gratian. Lib. i. c. 5 : " Do not," says he, " Arian, estimate
divine things by our (sayings, or writings, or authorities, or
words); but believe them divine, when you find that they are
not human 5 ." Divine things, therefore, are proved by them
selves, are believed on their own account. Salvian, the bishop,
De Providentia, Lib. in., writes thus : " All human sayings need
arguments and witnesses, but the word of God is its own witness ;
because it must needs be, that whatever incorruptible truth speaks,
should be the incorruptible testimony of truth 6 ."
We have besides the testimonies of papists themselves. For the
chief popish writers may be cited in this cause, Gabriel Biel, in
Sentent. Lib. in. Dist. 25, in Dub. 3, speaks thus : " Catholic veri
ties, without any approbation of the church, are by their own na
ture immutable, and immutably true, and so are to be considered
[ 2 Ut . . . quod credimus intelligere mereamur, non jam hoininibus, sed ipso
Deo intrmsecus mentem nostram firmante atquc illuminante. T. x. p. 192.]
[3 Vide supra, p. 354.]
[ 4 TI virep ras \oycKas fJ,c66&ovs rrjv ^xty els o-vyKaradea-iv e\KOVcra, K.T.\.
T. i. p. 313, B. Whitaker, in making this citation, writes incorrectly &lt;rvy-
KarajSaanv for o-vyKarddfo-iv.]
[ 5 Noli, Arriane, ex nostris sestimare divina, sed divina crede ubi hu-
mana non invenis. Opp. T. iv. p. 122. Par. 1603.]
[ 6 Humana omnia dicta arguments et testibus egent, Dei autem sermo
ipse sibi testis est : quia necesse est quicquid incorrupta veritas loquitur, in-
corruptum sit testimonium veritatis. Salv. Opp. Par. 1684, p. 43.]
358 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH. XI.
immutably catholic 1 . * But this is a catholic verity about which we
inquire : it is, therefore, immutable in its nature, and immutably to be
considered catholic, and that, without the approbation of the church.
Hosius in his Confessio Petrocoviensis, cap. 16, says that we believe
the gospel on no other score, but on account of the voice of God
speaking within and teaching us 2 . This he affirms more than once
in that book, although afterwards he tries in some degree to
correct and excuse himself. Melchior Canus, Loo. Commun. Lib.
ii. c. 8, disputes upon this question at great length, and, though
differing from us in words, agrees with us in substance. For he
says, that, without infused faith we can believe nothing necessarily,
nor be persuaded of any thing certainly. But that faith which
springs from the church s judgment is acquired ; whereas infused
faith proceeds from the Holy Spirit. Therefore, even by the con
fession of the papists themselves, the scripture is to us what it is,
that is, the scripture, on account of the authority of God ; and in
order that we should certainly believe what we receive in scripture,
we have need of the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. Cani-
sius, in his Catechism, in the chapter upon the precepts of the
church, sect. 16, says that we "believe, adhere, and attribute the
greatest authority to scripture on account of the testimony of the
divine Spirit which speaks in it 3 ." Hence two things are collected :
first, that the Holy Spirit speaks in scripture ; secondly, that the
Holy Spirit, speaking in scripture, persuades us to believe scripture
and assign to it the greatest authority. So Stapleton in the last
chapter of his first book: "It is not derogatory to the sacred scrip
ture that it receives witness from the church, although it have greater
testimony from the Spirit of God, who is its author." If this be
true, why hath Stapleton afterwards disputed so keenly against this
testimony of the Spirit, which he had himself confessed to be greater
than the testimony of the church ? And Bellarmine himself, in his
MS. lectures upon Thomas Secunda Secundce, Qusest. 1, Art. l,Dub. 1,
teaches that we believe, not on account of the church, but on ac
count of the revelation of God ; and refutes the contrary opinions
of certain others. Thus we conclude that our opinion is true not only
in itself, but even in the judgment of our adversaries themselves.
And so much upon the third question.
[! Sicut veritates catholicse absque omni approbatione ecclesise ex natura
rei sunt immutabiles, et immutabiliter verse, ita sunt immutabiliter catholicse
reputandse. p. 253. Brixise, 1574.]
[ 2 . . propter Dei vocem intus loquentis. p. 21. Opp. Lugd. 1564.]
[ 3 Scripturse propter testimonium divini Spiritus in ilia loquentis credi-
mus,&c. Opus Catech. p. 157. Colon. 1577.]
THE FIRST CONTROVERSY.
QUESTION IV.
CONCERNING THE PERSPICUITY OF SCRIPTURE.
CHAPTER I.
OF THE STATE OF THE QUESTION.
IN commencing to speak of this question, we must return to
that foundation which was laid at the beginning. In John v. 39,
Christ says, " Search the scriptures," epevvare rets ypa&lt;pds. The
precept of Christ, therefore, is plain, declaring that the scriptures
should be searched : whence the question arises, whether those
sacred scriptures, which we are commanded to search, are so full
of obscurity and difficulty as to be unintelligible to us ; or whether
there be not rather a light and clearness and perspicuity in scrip
ture, so as to make it no useless task for the people to be engaged
and occupied in their perusal. Here, therefore, we have to dispute
concerning the nature of scripture. But, before coming to the
argument, we must see what is the opinion of our adversaries upon
this matter, and what is our own. As to our own opinion, the
papists certainly either do not understand it; or, if they do, treat
us unfairly and slander us in an impudent manner. For we never
said that every thing in scripture is easy, perspicuous, and plain ;
that there is nothing obscure, nothing difficult to be understood ;
but we confess openly that there are many obscure and difficult
passages of scripture : and yet these men object to us this, and
affirm that we maintain the scriptures to be perfectly easy.
The council of Trent hath defined or expressly determined no
thing upon this matter. We must, therefore, investigate the opinion
of our adversaries by the help of other writings of papists, so as to
be enabled to discover the true state of the controversy. Eckius, the
most insolent of popish writers, in his Enchiridion, Loc. iv., writing
of the scripture, objects to us this opinion, that the scripture is so
easy, that even the ignorant people may and ought to read it.
360 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cil.
His words are these: "The Lutherans contend that the sacred scrip
tures are clear ; and accordingly laymen and doting old women treat
of them in a style of authority V Whence we understand that their
mind and opinion is, that the people are to be kept from reading
the scriptures, because they are so obscure as that they cannot be
understood by laics, women, and the vulgar. We hold the con
trary, that the scriptures are not so difficult but that they may
be read with advantage, and ought to be read, by the people.
Hosius also, in his third book of the authority of the church against
Brentius, is copious in proving and establishing the exceeding great
obscurity of the sacred writings. So the Censors of Cologne, against
Monhemius, write to precisely the same effect : for they say in
their preface, that the difficulty of scripture " may be argument
enough that all are not to be indiscriminately admitted to the read
ing of it." Hence they conclude that the unlearned are to be
prohibited reading scripture, even the history of Christ s passion ;
in which they say that there are so many doubtful points, that even
the learned can hardly reconcile them. Thus they permit no part of
scripture to the people, not even that most sweet and easy narra
tive, altogether worthy of our perusal and meditation, which con
tains the history of the death of Christ. Andradius, Orthodox.
Explic. Lib. ir., disputes largely upon the obscurity of scripture.
Lindanus, in his Panoplia, Lib. in. c. 6, affirms of all scripture that
which Peter said only of certain subjects handled in Paul s Epistles :
for he says that there are, throughout the whole body of scripture,
many things " hard to be understood," and that such is the unani
mous opinion of divines. Stapleton, Lib. x. c. 2, says that the
church ought to interpret scripture on account of the difficulties
which present themselves generally and in most places. The Rhe-
mists, in their annotations upon 2 Pet. iii. 16, say that the whole
scripture is difficult, but especially the Epistles of Paul ; whereas
Peter, as shall appear hereafter, affirms neither : all that Peter
observes is, that there are some things in Paul s Epistles " hard to
be understood, which the unlearned wrest, as they do the other
scriptures, to their own destruction." What they subjoin out of
Augustine, that of all things which Paul taught, nothing is more
difficult than what he writes concerning the righteousness of faith,
can by no means be conceded. For if Paul ever said any thing
plainly, he hath declared his mind upon this subject in a perspi-
\} Lutheran! contendunt scripturas sacras esse claras ; ideo laici et delirse
anus eas tractant imperiose.]
I.] QUESTION THE FOURTH. 361
cuous discourse. The same Rhemists, in their marginal annotation
upon Luke vi. 1, attribute to us this opinion, " that all things are
very easy." The Jesuit Bellarmine affirms that there are many
obscurities in scripture ; which we also concede : but when he de
termines the state of the question to be this, whether scripture be
so plain of itself, as to suffice without any interpretation for decid
ing and putting an end to all controversies of faith of its own self,
he fights without an adversary : at least he hath no adversaries
in us upon this point. Prateolus, in his JElenchus Hcereticorum,
Lib. xvn. c. 20, says that it is the common article of all sectaries to
affirm that the scriptures are clear of themselves, and need no inter
pretation. Sixtus Senensis, in his Bibliotheca, Lib. vi. Annot. 151,
objects to us this error, that we say that the whole scriptures are
so clear and perspicuous of their own nature as to be capable of
being understood by any one, however illiterate, unless some exter
nal obstacle be interposed. Costerus the Jesuit, in his Enchiridion
of Controversies lately published, confesses that many things in
scripture are plain ; but adds that many things are not of such a
nature as to be intelligible to every body without any trouble.
But they do us injustice, and openly preach falsehood concerning
us, when they affirm us to say that all things in scripture are so
plain that they may be understood by any unlearned person, and
need no exposition or interpretation. Hence we see, both what they
think, namely, that the scriptures are so obscure that they ought
not to be read by the unlearned ; and what they say, but falsely
say, that we think, that all things are plain in the scriptures, and
that they suffice without any interpretation to determine all contro
versies. Let us now see what our opinion really is.
Luther, in his assertion of the articles condemned by Leo X.,
in the preface, says that the scripture is its own most plain, easy,
and certain interpreter, proving, judging, and illustrating all
things. This is said by him most truly, if it be candidly under
stood. The same author, in his book of the Slavery of the Will
against the Diatribe of Erasmus, writes almost in the beginning,
that in the scriptures there is nothing abstruse, nothing obscure,
but that all things are plain. And because this may seem a para
dox, he afterwards explains himself thus : he confesses that many
places of scripture are obscure, that there are many words and
sentences shrouded in difficulty, but he affirms nevertheless that no
dogma is obscure ; as, for instance, that God is one and three, that
Christ hath suffered, and will reign for ever, and so forth. All
362 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
which is perfectly true : for although there is much obscurity in
many words and passages, yet all the articles of faith are plain.
Stapleton, Lib. x. cap. 3, interprets these words of Luther, as if he
said, that all the difficulty of scripture arose from ignorance of
grammar and figures ; and he objects to us Origen and Jerome,
who certainly were exquisitely skilled in grammar and rhetoric,
and yet confess themselves that they were ignorant of many things,
and may have erred in many places. We answer, that what he
blames in Luther is most true, if it be rightly understood : for
he who can always arrive at the grammatical sense of scripture,
will, beyond all doubt, best explain and interpret the scriptures.
But hitherto no one hath been able to do this every where and in
all places. Certainly the grammatical meaning of scripture, as it
is ever the best and truest, so is it sometimes the hardest to be
found; so that it is no wonder that Origen and Jerome himself,
although both of them most skilful grammarians, may have erred
in the interpretation of scripture. Luther adds besides, that the
things themselves are manifest in scripture ; and that therefore we
need not be put to much trouble, if the words be sometimes in
many places less manifest. His words are these : " The things
themselves are in light ; we need not care, therefore, though some
signs of the things be in darkness 1 ." But some persons complain
greatly of the obscurity of the things also, so that this distinction
of Luther s between the things and the signs of the things may
seem to be idle. Luther answers that this occurs, not from the
obscurity and difficulty of the things themselves, but from our
blindness and ignorance. And this he very properly confirms by
the testimony of Paul, 2 Cor. iii. 14, 15, 16, where Paul says that
" the vail is placed upon the hearts of the Jews until this very day,
which vail is done away in Christ ;" and from 2 Cor. iv. 3, where
the same apostle says, " If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them
which are lost:" and he illustrates the same thing by the simili
tude of the sun and the day, both of which, although very clear in
themselves, are invisible to the blind. " There is nothing," says he,
" brighter than the sun and the day : but the blind man cannot
even see the sun, and there are some also who flee the light 2 ."
Stapleton endeavours to take this answer from him. He says that
[! Nihil refert, si res sit in luce, an aliquod ejus signum sit in tenebris.
Opp. Witeberg. T. n. p. 459. 2.]
[ 2 Eadem temeritate solem obscurumque diem culparet, qui ipse sibi
oculos velaret. Ibid. p. 460.]
I.] QUESTION THE FOURTH. 363
Luther, in this way, condemns all the fathers, and so all antiquity,
of error and blindness. But I answer, that Luther is speaking of
things, that is of the nature of the doctrine and of the articles of
the Christian religion : the truth of which (though not of all, yet of
those which are necessary to salvation), it is manifest from their
writings, was thoroughly seen by the fathers. He is not speaking
of the several words and passages wherein they might sometimes
easily err, without, nevertheless, in the least incurring the blame
of blindness on that account.
But Erasmus, in his Diatribe, contends that even some dog
mas are obscure, as the doctrine of the Trinity, of the distinction
of Persons, of sin against the Holy Ghost, and such like ; and
to this sense he tortures that passage which is contained in Rom.
xi. 33, where Paul says that the "judgments of God are unsearch
able, and his ways past finding out." Luther answers, that these
doctrines are indeed obscure in themselves ; but that they are
plain so far forth as they are proposed in scripture, if we will
be content with that knowledge which God hath propounded and
conceded to his church in the scripture, and not search into every
thing more curiously than becomes us. But as to the passage
from Paul, he answers, that indeed the things of God are obscure,
but that the things of scripture are clear ; that the judgments of
God concerning the number of the elect, the day and hour of the
judgment, and such-like, are unknown and inscrutable ; but that
those things which God hath revealed in his word are by no means
inscrutable to us ; and that Paul in that place spoke of the things
of God, not of the things of scripture. Furthermore he says,
that the reason why so many dispute about the things of scripture
is to be found in the perversity and depraved desires of men, espe
cially the sophists and schoolmen, who, not content with the sim
plicity of scripture, have rendered every thing obscure and intricate
by their traps and devices ; but that the scripture must not be
falsely blamed on account of men s abuse of it. Luther uses ano
ther distinction also in that place. He says that the perspicuity
or obscurity of scripture is either internal or external ; the internal
is that of the heart itself, the external is in the words. If we
speak of the internal obscurity or perspicuity of scripture, he says
that not even one jot is in this way clear in the scripture without
the internal light of the Holy Spirit ; for that all things in this
view and respect are obscure to the fleshly understanding of men,
according to that which is said in Ps. xiv. : " The fool hath said in
his heart, that there is no God." But if we understand the exter-
364 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. |_CH.
nal clearness or obscurity of scripture, he says that all doctrines
are in this way clear, and brought to light in the ministry of the
word. And this distinction is very necessary : for although, in
the external way, we perfectly hold all the doctrines of religion,
we yet understand nothing internally to salvation, nor have learned
any dogma aright, without the teaching of the Holy Spirit.
Assuredly, this is the difference between theology and philoso
phy : since it is only the external light of nature that is required
to learn thoroughly the arts of philosophy ; but to understand theo
logy aright, there is need of the internal light of the Holy Spirit,
because the things of faith are not subject to the teaching of mere
human reason. We may, in a certain manner, be acquainted with
the doctrines of scripture, and obtain an historical faith by the
ministry of the word, so as to know all the articles of faith, and
deem them to be true, and all without the inward light of the
Spirit, as many impious men and devils do ; but we cannot have
the 7r\t]po&lt;popia&gt; that is, a certain, solid, and saving knowledge,
without the Holy Spirit internally illuminating our minds. And
this internal clearness it is, which wholly flows from the Holy
Ghost. Other arts serve our purpose when only externally under
stood ; but this is of no avail unless understood internally. Mean
while Luther was far from such madness as to say, that there was
nothing difficult in scripture, or that it did not need an interpre
tation. Yea, on the contrary, in the preface to his Commentary
upon the Psalms, he acknowledges that there are many ob
scurities and difficulties in the scripture, which God hath left us,
as if on purpose to keep us constantly scholars in the school of
the Holy Spirit. And in the same place he affirms, that a
man must be impudent who would say that he understood even
any one book thoroughly : and the same hath ever been the
opinion of us all.
The state of the question, therefore, is not really such as the
papists would have it appear ; but our fundamental principles are
these : First, that the scriptures are sufficiently clear to admit of
their being read by the people and the unlearned with some fruit
and utility. Secondly, that all things necessary to salvation are
propounded in plain words in the scriptures. Meanwhile, we con
cede that there are many obscure places, and that the scriptures
need explication ; and that, on this account, God s ministers are to
be listened to when they expound the word of God, and the men
best skilled in scripture are to be consulted. So far concerning
the state of the question.
II.] QUESTION THE FOURTH. 365
CHAPTER II.
WHY GOD WOULD HAVE MANY OBSCURITIES IN THE SCRIPTURES.
WE should carefully bear in memory the preceding distinctions
drawn by Luther ; for they are sufficient to obviate almost all the
arguments of the papists in this question. But before proceeding
to their arguments, I have thought it proper to set forth the rea
sons on account of which God was willing that there should be so
many things of considerable obscurity and difficulty in the scriptures.
This contributes much to the better understanding of the matter
upon which we treat. The fathers write excellently well upon this
subject, as Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromat. Lab. vi. 1 , Augustine, de
Doct. Christ. Lib. n. 2 , Gregory, Homil. vi. in Ezechiel 3 , and others.
Now the causes are such as follow: First, God would have
us to be constant in prayer, and hath scattered many obscurities up
and down through the scriptures, in order that we should seek his
help in interpreting them and discovering their true meaning.
Secondly, he wished thereby to excite our diligence in reading,
meditating upon, searching and comparing the scriptures ; for, if
every thing had been plain, we should have been entirely slothful
and negligent. Thirdly, he designed to prevent our losing interest
in them ; for we are ready to grow weary of easy things : God,
therefore, would have our interest kept up by difficulties. Fourthly,
God willed to have that truth, so sublime, so heavenly, sought and
found with so much labour, the more esteemed by us on that account.
For we generally despise and contemn whatever is easily acquired,
near at hand, and costs small or no labour, according to the Greek
proverb, e?rf Ovpas TY\V vSpiav* But those things which we find
with great toil and much exertion, those, when once we have found
them out, we esteem highly and consider their value proportionally
greater. Fifthly, God wished by this means to subdue our pride and
arrogance, and to expose to us our ignorance. We are apt to think
too honourably of ourselves, and to rate our genius and acuteness
more highly than is fitting, and to promise ourselves too much from
our science and knowledge. Sixthly, God willed that the sacred
mysteries of his word should be opened freely to pure and holy
minds, not exposed to dogs and swine. Hence those things which
[! P. 677, et seqq. ed. Morell. Paris. 1629.]
[ 2 cap. 6, pp. 35, 36. ed. Bruder. Lips. 1838.]
[ 3 Opp. p. 1261, A. Paris. 1705.]
3G6 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cH.
are easy to holy persons, appear so many parables to the profane.
For the mysteries of scripture are like gems, which only he that
knows them values ; while the rest, like the cock in JrCsop, despise
them, and prefer the most worthless objects to what is most beauti
ful and excellent. Seventhly, God designed to call off our minds
from the pursuit of external things and our daily occupations, and
transfer them to the study of the scriptures. Hence it is now
necessary to give some time to their perusal and study ; which
we certainly should not bestow upon them, if we found every thing
plain and open. Eighthly, God desired thus to accustom us to a
certain internal purity and sanctity of thought and feeling. For
they who bring with them profane minds to the reading of scrip
ture, lose their trouble and oil: those only read with advantage,
who bring with them pure and holy minds. Ninthly, God willed
that in his church some should be teachers, and some disciples ;
some more learned, to give instruction ; others less skilful, to receive
it ; so as that the honour of the sacred scriptures and the divinely
instituted ministry might, in this manner, be maintained.
Such was the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, wherewith, as Au
gustine expresses it, De Doctrina Christ. Lib. n. c. 6, he hath
modified the scriptures so as to maintain their honour and consult
our good. Other causes more besides these might be adduced ;
but it is not necessary to enumerate more.
CHAPTER III.
WHEREIN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE PAPISTS ARE OBVIATED.
LET us come now to the arguments of our adversaries ; which
indeed might be omitted, as neither injuring, nor even touching our
cause, nor having any force against us whatsoever : for all that they
prove is, that there are some difficult passages in scripture, which
we concede. Costerus, a papist, in his Enchiridion, cap. 1, men
tions and sets forth some places full of obscurity and difficulties, as
1 Pet. iii. 19, where Christ is said to have " preached to the spirits
in prison, which were sometime disobedient in the days of Noah,"
&c. ; and 1 Cor. xv. 29, " What shall they do who are baptized
for the dead, if the dead rise not at all ?" 1 Cor. iii. 15, " If any
man s work be burned, he shall suffer loss ; yet he himself shall be
III.] QUESTION THE FOURTH. 367
saved, yet so as by fire." He might verily have produced a thou
sand such passages ; but, in order to dispute pertinently against
Luther and us, he ought to have shewn some doctrines or articles
of faith not openly and plainly set forth in scripture. Bellarmine
alleges five arguments in order to prove the scriptures to be ob
scure, which we acknowledge in some places to be true. But let
us see of what sort these arguments are.
His FIRST argument is taken from the authority of scripture,
from which he cites some passages. In the first place he reasons
thus : David was ignorant of many things, therefore much more we ;
consequently, the scriptures are obscure. Now that David was
ignorant of many things, he proves from Psalm cxix., where it is
said, " Give me understanding, and I will search thy law ;" where
also the psalmist entreats God " to teach him " his law, to " illumi
nate his eyes ;" and in many places of that same Psalm he ingenu
ously confesses his ignorance of many things. To the same purpose
he alleges what Jerome writes of David, to Paulinus, Ep. 13, de
Institit. Monachi: "If so great a prophet confesses the darkness of
ignorance, with what night of ignorance do you suppose that we,
mere babes and hardly more than sucklings, are surrounded 1 ?"
From all which he concludes that the scriptures are obscure. I
answer, in the first place, these things do not touch the question.
There is no one amongst us who does not confess with David, that
God is to be constantly besought to teach us his law, to illuminate
our hearts, &c. Therefore the example of David is objected to us
in vain. Who would believe that these men know what they are
saying ? Do we indeed affirm that the scripture is so plain, that
God needs not to be prayed to to teach us his law, his will, and his
word ? No one was ever so impious and so mad. Therefore we
ought continually to pray with David, that God would give us
understanding, that he would open our eyes, illuminate our minds,
and teach us himself: otherwise we shall never understand any
thing aright. For it is not enough to know the words, the letter
or the history, but a full persuasion is required. This it was that
David sought, that he might more and more make progress in true
understanding and faith. Secondly, David speaks there not prin
cipally of the external understanding (for doubtless he knew the
letter, and the grammatical and historical sense of most passages),
but of that internal full assurance whereof we read Luke i. 1, in
t 1 Si tantus propheta tenebras ignorantise confitetur, qua nos putas parvulos
et pene lactentes inscitise nocte circumdari? Opp. T. i. p. 323. Veron. 1734.]
368 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cil.
order to the obtaining of which we maintain that we must labour
with continual prayers. Thus David was ignorant of some things,
and did not perfectly penetrate the meaning of God and the mys
teries of his word ; which is plain from Jerome himself in that same
place quoted by Bellarmine. For thus he subjoins : " Unless the
whole of what is written be opened by him who hath the key of
David, who openeth and no man shutteth, and shutteth. and no man
openeth, they can be unfolded by no other hand 1 ."
The second passage of scripture which he objects is Luke xxiv. 27,
from which place he reasons thus : Christ interpreted the scriptures
to his disciples : therefore the scriptures are not easy, but need
an interpreter, I answer, in the first place, which of us ever took
away the interpretation of scripture ? Certainly, none of us ; for
we all readily confess that the scriptures need interpretation.
Secondly, those disciples were crushed and stricken at that time
with a sort of amazement, and slow and unapt to understand any
thing ; so that it is no wonder that they could not understand the
scriptures without an interpretation. Thirdly, those who under
stand the grammatical sense of scripture, ought nevertheless to
hear the exposition of scripture, to help them to a better under
standing. This we never denied.
In the third place, he objects to us the case of the eunuch, Acts
viii., whom he states to have been a pious man and studious of the
scripture; and to prove this he cites the superfluous testimony of
Jerome, from his epistle to Paulinus concerning the study of the
scriptures. He, being asked by Philip if he understood what he was
reading, replied, " How can I understand, unless some rnan declare
it unto me ?" Therefore, says Bellarmine, the scriptures need inter
pretation. I answer, in the first place, we concede that many things
in scripture are obscure and need interpretation ; therefore this place
concludes nothing against us. Secondly, although this eunuch was
pious and very studious of scripture, he was yet unskilful and not
much familiar with scripture, as is plain from his question ; for he
asked Philip whether the prophet spoke of himself, or of some other
person. Now, we do not say that every thing is immediately plain
and easy in the scriptures, so as to be intelligible to every one ;
but we say that those things which at first seem obscure and diffi
cult, are afterwards rendered easy, if one be diligent in reading
[! Nisi aperta fuerint universa quse scripta sunt, ab eo qui habet clavem
Davidis, qui aperit et nemo claudit, claudit et nemo aperit, nullo alio rese-
rante pandentur. Ibid. p. 324.]
III.] QUESTION TEIE FOURTH. 369
them, and bring with him a pure and pious mind. Thirdly, as to
Jerome, we say that he speaks of a certain higher understanding
and illumination, as is manifest from his own words in that place.
For thus he writes of that eunuch 2 : " While he held the book, and
conceived in thought, uttered with his tongue and sounded with his
lips, the words of the Lord, he knew not him whom in the book he
ignorantly worshipped. Philip comes, shews him Jesus, who lay
concealed in the letter. wonderful power of a teacher ! In the
same hour the eunuch believes, is baptized, and becomes faithful
and holy, a master in place of a disciple."
In the fourth place, he objects to us the words of Peter which
are contained in 2 Epistle iii. 16, where Peter says expressly that
there are Svffvo^rd TWO. (some things hard to be understood) in
Paul s epistles. And the Jesuit bids us observe, that Peter does not
say that there are some things hard to be understood merely by
the unlearned and unstable, but simply and absolutely Sua-vorjra,
difficulties ; whence he wishes to infer that they are difficult to all,
though especially to the unlearned. And to this purpose he al
leges the testimony of Augustine, De fide et operibus, c. 16, where
he confesses that a certain place in Paul seems to him very difficult.
I answer, first, We concede that some places are hard to be under
stood: therefore, this passage docs not make against us. Secondly,
Peter does not say that Travra, all things, but only TIVCL, some
things, are hard to be understood. And what if some things be
obscure? Yet it follows that the greatest part is plain and easy.
Thirdly, Although Peter inveighs against the o^aOels Kal aarypiK-
Tot&gt;9, "the unlearned and unstable," who crTpefiXovcri "wrest" the
scriptures, he nevertheless does not debar them altogether from the
reading of the scriptures. Fourthly, Peter does not say that Paul s
epistles are obscure, nay, not even that there are some obscurities in
Paul s epistles, but only in those things concerning which he himself
writes in his own. Now Peter speaks of the last judgment, and the
destruction of the world, about which unlearned men had at that
time many ridiculous fictions. That Peter is speaking of the subjects,
not of the epistles of Paul, is manifest from the very words : for
he does not say, ev crfs, but ev ols, which plainly refers to the
[ 2 Cum librum teneret et verba Domini cogitatione conciperct, lingua
volveret, labiis personaret, ignorabat eum quern in libro nesciens venerabatur.
Venit Philippus, ostendit ei Jesum, qui clausus latebat in litera. mira
doctoris virtus! Eadem hora credit Eunuchus, baptizatur, et fidelis ac
sanctus factus est, ac magister de discipulo. Ibid. p. 272. Ep. 53.]
24
[WHITAKER.J
370 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
immediately preceding. In these matters and articles of our
faith we confess that there are many difficulties, as also in other
mysteries of our religion. The occasion of the mistake arose from
the vulgate version, which renders in quibus, which is ambiguous.
Beza much more properly, in order to remove the ambiguity, trans
lates it, inter qua?. Peter, therefore, speaks not of the character of
Paul s epistles. But the Rhemists endeavour to overturn this reply,
in which attempt they shew how stupid they are, while they de
sire to exhibit their acuteness. They say there is absolutely no
difference between these two assertions : This author is difficult and
obscure, and, There are many things difficult and obscure in this
author. I answer, first, Peter does not say, as they would have
him, that all, or many, but only some things in Paul s epistles are
obscure : he narrows his expression as much as possible. Secondly,
these two assertions are not equivalent: for an author may speak
perspicuously and plainly of things most obscure and difficult. What
is harder to be understood than that God made the world out of
nothing ? that God took flesh of a virgin ? that God and man were
one person ? That this world shall be destroyed, and our bodies
restored again to life after death, surpass our understanding ; and
yet concerning these the scriptures speak with the utmost clearness
and explicitness. So much for Bellarmine s first argument.
His SECOND argument is taken from the common consent of the
ancient fathers, of whom he brings forward eight, Irenseus, Origen,
Ruffinus, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Gregory; all
of which very learned fathers may be passed over by us, since
they say absolutely nothing that makes against us. For they either
say that there are some obscurities in scripture, or that, without
the internal light of the Spirit, the scriptures cannot be rightly
understood by us as they ought : both of which propositions we
concede. However, let us return some reply, as briefly as we can,
to each of the testimonies of these fathers. The first is Irena3us,
who, in his second book against heresies, cap. 47, after shewing that
there are many things, even in the creatures themselves, obscure
and difficult, as the origin of the Nile, the vernal visits and autumnal
departures of the birds, the ebb and flow of the sea, and other
such like things, finally accommodates all these to scripture. "Like
wise," says he, "in the scriptures we understand some things, and
some things we commit to God 1 ." I answer, that nothing could
[! Si ergo et in rebus creaturse qusedam quidem eorum adjacent Deo,
qusedam autem et in nostram venerunt scientiam ; quid mali est, si et eorum
III.] QUESTION THE FOURTH. 371
be said more truly ; for never any man attained to all things that
are delivered in scripture. But we speak of things necessary.
This testimony of Irenseus avails against those, who, elate with
pride and carried further than behoves them by curiosity, attribute
to themselves, a knowledge of all things, and especially of the scrip
tures : but it in no way touches us, who confess that there are
many matters in scripture too abstruse to be perfectly understood
by any man in this life.
The second testimony is that of Origen, who in his twelfth
Homily on Exodus says, that in the case of the scriptures we
should not only employ study, but pour forth prayers also day and
night, that the Lamb of the tribe of Juda may come and open for
us the sealed book 2 . So, in his seventh book against Celsus, he
says that the scripture is in many places obscure 3 . I answer, We
say also that study and diligence are required in reading the scrip
tures, and that assiduous prayers are also necessary. The papists,
therefore, are impertinent, who say that we affirm that any one
may treat the scriptures negligently and without prayer, and yet
understand them correctly, or that the scripture is not in many
places obscure.
The third father whom Bellarmine cites is Ruffinus. He, Lib.
xi. c. 9, writes that Basil and Nazianzen were both bred at Athens,
both colleagues for many years; and, setting aside the books of the
philosophers, applied themselves with the utmost zeal to the scrip
tures, bestowing their whole attention upon them, and learned
them from the writings and authority of the fathers, not from their
own presumption. Hence the Jesuit concludes that the scrip
tures are obscure. I answer, that these distinguished men be
stowed this so great labour and such extraordinary diligence
in the study of scripture, not to obtain any moderate or vulgar
knowledge, but that they might understand the scriptures accu
rately, and prove fit to instruct others. Similar study and dili
gence should be applied by all those who would discharge the
office of pastors and teachers in the church, as was the case of
Basil and Nazianzen ; but so great labour is not necessarily re
quired in the people. It is sufficient for them to understand and
quse in scripturis requiruntur, universis scrip turis spiritualibus existentibus,
qusedam quidem absolvamus secundum gratiam Dei, qucedam autem com-
mendemus Deo? p. 203. B.]
[ 2 Opp. T. n. p. 174. Par. 1733.]
[ 3 pp. 338, 9. ed. Spencer. Cantab. 1658.]
242
372 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cFT.
hold aright the articles of faith, and the things which are neces
sary to salvation.
In the fourth place, Bellarmine objects to us Chrysostom. He
in his fortieth Homily on the fifth chapter of the gospel of St John,
upon these words, epsware rds ypa&lt;pds, "search the scriptures,"
says that there is need of great labour and the utmost diligence in
the sacred scriptures, and that it behoves us to dig deep, to search
and investigate diligently to find those things which lie concealed
in their depths. For it is not (says he) what lies ready to hand
and at the surface that we dig for, but what is profoundly buried
like a treasure. I answer, these words do not prove that the scrip
tures are so obscure that the laity ought not to read them. We,
for our parts, confess that the scriptures ought not to be read care
lessly, or without faith, as they were read by the Jews ; but we
judge both diligence and faith to be required in the reading of
them. The Jews read the scriptures negligently and without faith :
we say that the scriptures are easy to the studious and faithful.
But Bellarmine produces another testimony also, from Chrysostom s
Opus Imperfectum upon Matthew, Horn. 44 ; where two reasons
are brought why God chose that the scriptures should be obscure.
The first is, that some might be teachers and others learners ;
because if all knew all things equally well, a teacher would not
be necessary, and good order would not be maintained amongst
men. The second reason is, lest scripture should be not so much
useful as contemptible, if it were understood promiscuously by all.
I answer : This is precisely the same as we say ourselves, that God,
induced by the fittest reasons, chose that there should be many
obscurities in scripture. But what hath this to do with the cause
in hand?
In the fifth place, he objects Ambrose, Epist. 44 ad Constan-
tium Episcopum, where these words are found : " The holy scripture
is a sea, having in it deep meanings, and the profundity of prophetic
enigmas, into which sea have entered many streams 1 ." I answer:
We readily confess with Ambrose, that there are many obscure
meanings in scripture, and that scripture is like a sea : but the
same Ambrose says also presently in the same place, that " there
are also in the scriptures rivers sweet and clear, and pure fountains
springing up unto eternal life." So he compares scripture to rivers
[! Mare est scriptura divina, habens in se sensus profundos, et altitudi-
nem prophcticorum senigmatum ; in quod mare plurima introierunt flumina.
Class. 1. Ep. n. 3. T. vm. p. 181. Ambros. Opp. ed. Caillau. Paris. 1839.]
III.] QUESTION THE FOURTH. 373
also. There are, I confess, in the scripture, as in the ocean, many-
depths ; but yet the same Ambrose himself says a little afterwards :
" There are different streams of scripture. You have what you may
drink first, what second, and what last 2 ."
In the sixth place he objects Jerome, from whom he cites three
testimonies. The first is taken from the Epistle to Paulinus on the
Study of the Scripture, where 3 he writes that we cannot possibly
learn and understand the scriptures, without some one to go before
and shew the way, that is, without a master and interpreter ; and,
running through all the books, he shews in each that there are
many things mystical and obscure. The second testimony of Je
rome is contained in the preface to his commentaries upon the
Epistle to the Ephesians, where he says that he had bestowed
much labour upon the scriptures, always either reading himself or
consulting others ; upon which latter account, he had gone as far
as to Alexandria, to consult there a certain learned man called
Didymus. The third testimony of Jerome, which Bellarmine cites
is taken from his Epistle to Algasia, Qurest. 8, where Jerome
writes, that the whole Epistle of Paul to the Romans is involved
in exceeding great obscurity 4 . I answer : We willingly acknow
ledge and concede all these things ; that is, firstly, that the scrip
tures cannot be perfectly understood without a master ; next, that
there are some obscure and difficult places in scripture, and that
teachers and masters should be consulted upon them ; lastly, that
the Epistle to the Romans is obscure ; and so that some books are
more obscure than others. Yet, meanwhile, it does not follow that
all things in scripture are so obscure that laymen should not touch
it, and the people should be wholly prevented and repelled from
its perusal : for in this way it would not be lawful for any man
whatsoever to read the scriptures.
In the seventh place, he objects Augustine, from whom he pro
duces four testimonies. The first is cited from his work De Doctr.
Christ. Lib. n. cap. 6, where Augustine teaches that the obscurity
of scripture is of use " to tame our pride and to rouse our un
derstanding from listlessness, since things easily investigated are
[ 2 Sunt ergo et fluvii dulces atque perspicui, sunt et fontes nivei, qui saliant
in vitam seternam . . . Diversa igitur scripturarum divinarum fluenta. Habes
quod primum bibas, habes quod secundum, habes quod postremum. Ibid.]
[ 3 Hsec a me perstricta sunt breviter . . . . ut intelligeres, te in scripturis
sanctis, sine prcevio et monstrante semitam, non posse ingredi. Ut supra,
p. 369.]
[ 4 T. i. pp. 86470.]
374 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
generally held cheap 1 ." I answer: Yet the same father says in
the same chapter, that the Holy Spirit provides for our hunger in
the plainer places, and that hardly any thing can be obtained from
those obscurer passages, which is not found said elsewhere with
the utmost plainness. The same father, in the ninth chapter of
the same book, says, that amongst those things which are plainly
set down in scripture, are to be found all those things which make
the sum of our faith and practice 2 . The second testimony of Au
gustine is taken from his Confessions, Lib. xn. cap. 14, where
he says, that " the depth of the divine words is wonderful 3 ."
I answer : we confess this to be most true in many places. But
as there are some places such as that an elephant may swim in
them, so there are others so disembarrassed, plain, and utterly free
from prejudices or danger, that a lamb may, as it were, easily
wade over them. The third testimony cited from Augustine is
contained in his third Epistle to Volusianus, where he says that
"the depth of the Christian scriptures is such, that one may every
day make new progress in them, although he should endeavour to
study them alone from his earliest childhood to decrepit age, in
the amplest leisure, with the closest study, and a genius of the
highest order." I answer : Here the Jesuit betrays his remarkable
unfairness, and really singular dishonesty : for there follow imme
diately these words which he hath omitted : "Not that one comes at
those things which are necessary to salvation with so much diffi
culty 4 ." Besides, the same father says in the same epistle, that
" the scripture, like a familiar friend, speaks without disguise
to the heart, not of the learned only, but of the unlearned also;
nor elevates with proud diction what it conceals in its mysteries, so
as to make the duller and unlearned minds afraid to approach,
like the poor to the rich ; but invites all by its humble style, whom
it feeds with its manifested truth, and exercises with that which is
[* Quod totum provisum divinitus esse non dubito ad edomandam labore
superbiam et intellectum a fastidio revocandum, cui facile investigata ple-
rumque vilescunt. Opp. T. in. p. 27.]
[ 2 In eis enim quse aperte in scripturis posita sunt, inveniuntur ilia omnia
quse continent fidem moresque vivendi. Ibid. p. 31.]
[ 3 Mira profunditas eloquiorum tuorum, quorum ecce ante nos superficies
blanditur parvulis : sed mira profunditas, Deus meus, mira profunditas. T.
I. p. 253.]
[ 4 Tanta est enim christianarum profunditas literarum, ut in eis continue pro-
ficerem,si eas solas ab ineuntepueritia usque ad decrepitamsenectutem,maximo
otio, summo studio, meliore ingenio addiscerem. Non quod ad ea quae necessa-
ria sunt saluti tanta in eis perveniatur difficultate. Ep. 137. n. 3. T. n. p. 526.]
III.] QUESTION THE FOURTH. 375
hidden." He says, moreover, that the scripture hath in its ready
places whatever it hath in the recondite ones: "but that, lest men
should grow weary of what is plain, the same things again when
covered are desired, when desired are, as it were, renewed, and
renewed are -intimated with pleasure 5 ." When the Jesuit passes
all this over in silence, he displays his own extraordinary desire to
deceive us. The fourth testimony of Augustine is found in Epist.
cxix. c. 21 : " In scripture," says Augustine, " there are many more
things that I know not, than that I know 6 ." I answer: This ought
to be the true and ingenuous confession of all, to acknowledge that
they are very far distant from the perfection of knowledge : yet
Augustine both professes that he himself knew whatever was neces
sary, and concedes that it might be easily understood by others.
The eighth testimony cited by the Jesuit is that of Gregory
the great, in his sixth Homily upon Ezekiel, where he writes thus :
" The very obscurity of the words of God is of great use, because
it exercises the perception so as to be enlarged by labour, and,
through exercise, be enabled to catch that which a lazy reader
cannot. It hath besides this still greater advantage, that the
meaning of the sacred scripture would be lightly esteemed, if it
were plain in all places. In some obscure places the sweetness
with which it refresheth the mind, when found, is proportionate to
the toil and labour which were expended upon the search 7 ." I an
swer : Nothing could be said more truly. We confess with Gre
gory, that there are many obscurities in scripture, and that this
hath happened through the divine wisdom, partly to exercise us in
scripture, partly to prevent its being despised, partly that the
[ 5 quasi amicus familiaris sine fuco ad cor loquitur indoctorum
atque doctorum. Ea vero quse in mysteriis occultat, nee ipso eloquio su-
perbo erigit, quo non audeat accedere niens tardiuscula et inerudita, quasi
pauper ad divitem; sed invitat omnes humili sermone, quos non solum
manifesta pascat, sed etiani secreta exerceat veritate, hoc in promptis quod
in reconditis habens : sed ne aperta fastidirentur, eadem rursus operta desi-
derantur, desiderata quodammodo renovantur, renovata suaviter intimantur.
Id. ibid. prop, fin.]
[ 6 Et miror quia hoc te latet, quod non solum in aliis innumerabilibus
rebus multa me latent, sed etiam in ipsis sanctis scripturis multo nesciam
plura quam sciam. Ep. 55. c. 21. n. 38. p. 190.]
[7 Magnse utilitatis est ipsa obscuritas eloquiorum Dei, quia exercet sen-
sum, ut fatigatione dilatetur, et exercitatus capiat quod capere non potest
otiosus. Habet quoque adhuc aliud majus, quia scripturse sacrse intelligen-
tia, si in cunctis esset aperta, vilesceret. In quibusdam locis obscurioribus
tanto majore dulcedine inventa reficit, quanto majore labore fatigat animum
qusesita. Opp. T. I. p. 1213. Paris. 1705.]
376 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
truth when discovered might give us greater pleasure. But, in
the meanwhile, Gregory does not say, that every thing is obscure
in scripture : yea, he plainly reclaims against such an assertion ;
for he says, " In some obscure places." Therefore it is not all, but
some places in scripture, that are obscure, if we believe Gregory.
But what man in his senses would reason thus: Some things in
scripture are obscure, so as not to be understood in a moment;
therefore either nothing can be understood, or the scriptures are
not to be read ? And so much for the Jesuit s second argument.
Bellar mine s THIRD argument is founded upon necessary reason
ing. In scripture, says he, we must consider two things, the
things spoken, and the way in which they are spoken. Whichever
we regard, there is the greatest difficulty. For, firstly, the things
are most difficult, namely, the divine mysteries which are delivered
in the scriptures of the Trinity, the incarnation of Christ, and
such like ; and Bellarmine asks, why metaphysics are more obscure
and difficult than the other sciences, but because of their subject-
matter ? because, that is, they treat of more obscure arid difficult
things? In the same way he concludes that the scriptures are hard
and dark, because hard and dark subjects are treated of therein. I
answer, by observing that the subjects of scripture are indeed
obscure, hidden, abstruse, and mysterious, yet not in themselves
but to us. When I say, in themselves I do not mean to say it
of the nature of the things themselves, as if the things were not
all obscure (for I confess that they are obscure) ; but what I mean
is, that the subjects of scripture, as they are set forth and delivered
in scripture, are not obscure. For example, that God is one in
substance and three in persons, that God was made man, and such
like, although they be in themselves, if we regard the nature of the
things themselves, so obscure that they can by no means be per
ceived by us ; yet they are proposed plainly in scripture, if we will
be content with that knowledge of them which God hath chosen to
o
impart to us. As to the fact, that many have written with great
acuteness and subtlety of these matters, I say that these subtleties
are of no concern to the people, who can be saved without a
knowledge of them. Yea, I say besides, that some of them are
impious, and destructive to the very persons who invented them.
Scripture would have us be contented with this plain, perspicuous,
and simple doctrine, which it delivers. All difficulty therefore, if
difficulty there be, in the things, is ours, and springs from ourselves.
And so much of the obscurity of the things themselves.
Now as to the manner of expression, he proves the scriptures
III.] QUESTION THE FOURTH. 377
to be obscure by six reasons. The first reason is, because there
are many things in the scriptures which may seem at first sight
contradictory and plainly repugnant to each other ; such as these
two places, Exod. xx. 5, where God threatens that he " will
visit the sins of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and
fourth generation ;" and Ezekiel xviii. 20, where we read that the
very soul which sirmeth shall die, and that " the son shall not bear
the iniquity of the father." I answer : Some things may seem
contradictory in scripture, to a man who does not consider
them with sufficient attention ; yet it is certain, nevertheless, that
scripture is in perfect harmony with itself. God willed that some
such shews of contradiction should occur in scripture, that we might
be so the more excited to diligence in reading, meditating upon,
and collating the passages together : wherein whosoever shall use
diligence, as Augustine formerly did in harmonizing the evangelists,
will easily reconcile all those places which seem repugnant to each
other. As to these passages, one readily perceives that they
agree. For it is certain that God punishes men for their own,
arid not for other people s sins, as we are told, Ezek. xviii. 20.
Therefore, what is said of the punishment of parents being derived
upon their posterity, Exod. xx. 5, must needs be understood with
this condition, if their posterity continue in their wickedness : for
if they avoid their parents sins they will not be subjected to their
punishments. The second reason, to prove that the scriptures are
obscure in their manner of expression, is this : because many
words in scripture are ambiguous, and many whole discourses also,
as John viii. 25 : Principium, qui et loquor vobis. I answer :
This is, indeed, ambiguous, and false, and utterly ridiculous, but
only in the Vulgate version : for it should be translated, quod
loquor, not qui loquor. But in the Greek text all is easy ; for
the words are TY\V apyr\v o TL Kal XaXw v/juv, that is, Kara TYJV
apX^" Of which words this meaning is obvious enough : I am
no other than what I have said that I was from the beginning.
The third reason is, because there are many imperfect speeches
and sentences in scripture, as in Rom. v. 12, wcnrefj occurs without
any thing to correspond to it : where the Jesuit says that the
principal word is wanting. I answer, that I cannot discover what
word he means, 1 confess that there is a want of an apodosis ;
but the sentence is not so obscure as to be unintelligible, and the
apostle seems afterwards to have subjoined the other member
which corresponds to this. The fourth reason is, because there
are in scripture many sentences put out of order ; as Gen. x. 31,
378 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [CH.
we find it written thus, " These are the children of Shem, accord
ing to their families and their tongues:" but in chap, xi., at the
very commencement, the whole earth is said to have been at that
time of one lip and one tongue. I answer, first, that in every
discourse, and especially in histories, some inversion of the order
of time (ixjTepov irporepov) is common. The rule of Ticonius
given long ago 1 was : That some things are related in scripture by
way of anticipation, so as to be told briefly before they occurred,
in order to prepare and make more intelligible a fuller exposition
of each circumstance in its proper place. And Augustine hath ad
mirably explained that place in the following manner, De Civit.
Dei, Lib. xvi. c. 4 : " Although, therefore, these nations are said
to have had their several languages, yet the historian returns back
to that time, when they all had but one language ; and setting out
from thence, he now explains what occurred to produce a diversity
of languages 2 ." Secondly, it should not be translated, " The peo
ple was of one speech," but, "had been of one speech:" and so
indeed Tremellius most fittingly and correctly renders it, so as to
remove all ambiguity ; to which version the Hebrew text is no
way repugnant. The fifth reason is, because there are in the
scriptures some phrases proper and peculiar to the Hebrew tongue,
which are to us very hard to be understood, as Ps. Ixxxix. 29,
"like the days of heaven;" as if there were day and night in
heaven, or as if heaven lived by day and night like men. So Ps.
cxix. 108: "My soul is alway in my hand 3 ." I answer, that
there are, indeed, in the Hebrew, as in other tongues, certain
idioms and phrases proper and peculiar to that language ; yet
such nevertheless as to be readily intelligible to those who are
practised in the scriptures, and such as express the meaning with a
singular sort of emphasis and grace. For who is so dull as not to
understand what such modes of speech as these denote ? God spake
by the hand of Jeremiah, or, The word of the Lord came by the
hand of Zechariah, that is, by the ministry of that prophet. So,
[* Sextam regulam Tichonius recapitulationem vocat .... Sic enim di-
cuntur qusedam, quasi sequantur in ordine temporis, vel rerum continuatione
narrentur, quum ad priora quse prsetermissa fuerant, latenter narratio revo-
cetur. Augustin. de Doctr. Christ. Lib. ra. c. 36. T. in. p. 81.]
[ 2 Cum ergo in suis linguis istse gentes fuisse referantur, redit tamen ad
illud tempus narrator, quando una lingua omnium fuit ; et inde jam exponit,
quid accident, ut linguarum diversitas nasceretur.]
[ 3 This phrase, however, is not peculiar to the Hebrew. It occurs in a
fragment of Xenarchus* Pentathlus, preserved by Athenseus, eV x l p" i rr } v
e xovra, deStora. Deipnos. Lib. xiii. 24. p. 569. ed. Casaub.]
III.] QUESTION THE FOURTH. 379
" His throne is like the days of heaven," that is, shall endure per
petually like heaven itself: and, "my soul is in my hand," that is,
is exposed to every danger. The sixth reason why the scriptures
are obscure in their mode of expression is this, because there are
many tropes, jmany figures and schemes of rhetoric in scripture, as
metaphors, ironies, metonymies, inversions, and such like. I answer
and say that scripture is not obscured, but illustrated, by these
tropes and figures. For even the rhetoricians themselves teach,
that tropes are to be employed for the purpose not of obscuring
speech, but of lending to it ornament and light. Augustine, de
Doctr. Christ. Lib. n. c. 6, writes thus upon this subject : " No
one doubts that things are more pleasantly understood by simili
tudes 4 ." Chrysostom, upon Isaiah viii. [v. 7], treating of these
words, " Behold the Lord will bring upon them the waters of the
river, strong and many, the king of the Assyrians," &c., writes
thus : " He hath in a metaphorical way used terms to express both
the manners of a native prince and the power of a barbarian.
This he does in order (as I have all along told you) to make his
discourse more plain 5 ." And a little after : " Whenever scripture
uses metaphors, it is wont to explain itself more clearly." In the
same way Thomas Aquinas, in the first part of Summ. QuaBst. i.
Artie. 9, respons. ad Arg. 2 : " Whence those things that in one
place are spoken under metaphors, are expressed more clearly
elsewhere 6 ." Therefore, although the scriptures are rendered more
obscure in some places by metaphors, yet those metaphors are
elsewhere explained so as to leave no obscurity in the discourse or
sentence. So much for Bellarmine s third argument.
o
His FOURTH argument is taken from common experience, and
stands thus : If the scriptures (says he) be not obscure, why have
Luther himself and the Lutherans published so many commentaries
upon the scriptures, and interpreted them so variously, that Osian-
der asserts that there are twenty most different opinions upon
justification subsisting amongst the Confessionists or Lutherans
alone? I answer, first, that the multitude of commentaries was
perhaps not very necessary, because the scriptures might have
been understood without so many of them : although those who
[ 4 Nemo ambigit per similitudines libentius quaeque cognosci. T. in. p. 28.]
[ 5 vrotei Se CLVTO, ovrep e(prjv del, rov \6yov ep.(f)avTiKa&gt;Tpov Karao-Kevdfav . . .
Travraxov ev rais /zera0opal? eavrrjv epurjveveiv t iwdev rj ypcxpij. Opp. T. I. p.
1084. Eton. 1612.]
[ 6 Unde ea quse in uno loco sub metaphoris dicuntur, in aliis locis ex-
pressius expommtur. Qusest. i. Art. ix. Resp. ad Arg. 2. p. 4. Par. 1639.]
380 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. [cil.
write learned and elaborate commentaries upon scripture deserve
special gratitude from all students of scripture. Secondly, I say-
that commentaries were published in order that the scriptures might
be better and more easily understood. Thirdly, I say that there
is the utmost unanimity amongst the Confessionists (as they call
them) in all things necessary, that is, in the articles of faith, and
especially concerning justification; although perhaps there may be
some dissension amongst them about smaller matters, as the ex
plication of some rather obscure place ; which proves not the
obscurity of scripture, but our slowness and inconstancy. Fourthly,
it is little matter what Osiander, a man of the utmost levity and
audacity, may have said ; whose calumnious temper appears from
his saying, that two methods of justification are collected by the
confessionists from these words, " Abraham believed God, and it
was imputed unto him for righteousness ;" one, of faith ; the other,
of imputation : as if, forsooth, being justified by faith and being
justified by imputation were not absolutely the same thing. Cer
tainly there is no difference between these two. These, therefore,
are not two different methods of justification; and the objection of
variety of opinions in a matter of the utmost moment is not true.
This calumny is mentioned by Hosius, in his third book against
Brentius. So also Lindanus, in his Dubitantius, and Prateolus, in
his Elenchus Hcereticorum, Lib. ix. c. 35. And so much of Bel-
larmine s fourth argument.
Now follows his FIFTH and last argument, which is taken from
the